SESA GOA LIMITED Vs. MORMUGAO WATERFRONT WORKERS UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises from the Award passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, at Mumbai, in reference No.CGIT-2/51 of 2000 on 29th August, 2003 and though the petition is styled as having been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, it is clear from the prayer clause that it is seeking to quash and set aside the said Award and, therefore, it is required to be treated as a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the extraction and export of iron ore, barge building and manufacture of pig iron and coke. It owns the sea going vessel M.V. Orissa, which is registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. The said vessel was purchased in 1996 with the objectives of utilizing the same for transporting the cargo and also as a transhipper at Mormugao Harbour. M.V. Orissa, came to Goa in March, 1996 and the petitioner Company awarded contract to respondent No.2 Contractor for carrying out loading and unloading activities on board M.V. Orissa (for short, referred to as the "Vessel"). The contract was for a period of six to eight months in a year, depending upon the requirements and the availability of the cargo. Respondent No.2 is a private limited company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and apart from other activities, it is engaged in stevedoring and handling agencies. Whereas, respondent No.1 is a registered trade union, claiming to represent the workmen employed by respondent No.2 and deployed on the Vessel.

(3.) THE company contends that due to global recession and for allied reasons spelt out in their letter dated 11.6.1999, it had terminated its contract with respondent No.2 and consequently, the contractor had no option but to declare closure of his business operation on board the Vessel with effect from 3.7.1999. In turn, the services of the workmen engaged by respondent No.2 on the Vessel were also terminated by payment of legal dues. However, the company having decided to place the transhipper in operation again, by its letter dated 27.10.1999, offered limited contract of crane operating jobs to respondent No.2, which in turn, by its letter dated 29.10.1999, called upon the crane operators whose services were terminated as a result of closure operations, to rejoin and confirm their willingness. This offer was followed by a telegram dated 12.11.1999. However, the workmen took a stand that unless all the 24 employees were reemployed after discussions with respondent No.1 Union, they would not be willing to join, but for one Supervisor and three operators. Under these circumstances, respondent No.2, therefore, had no option, but to recall the balance crane operators to fulfill the new contract with the petitioner Company. The workmen, through respondent No.1, raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) at Vasco-da-Gama, and claimed reinstatement with back wages in the operations on the Vessel. It appears that separate disputes were raised by respondent No.1 against the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 contractor. By letter dated 1.6.2000, the Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, by referring to the failure report, submitted by the Conciliation Officer on 10.1.2000, informed that the Ministry did not consider the dispute fit for adjudication for the reasons that the workmen involved in the dispute were appointed by the Contractor for specific periods and they were terminated from services on completion of the work. At the same time, by order dated 19.5.2000, the said Under Secretary, referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Mumbai :