NAZRUL HASSAN SIDDIQUI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVENMENT INDUSTRIAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL CUM LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is employed in one of the collieries of Western Coal Fields Limited respondent No. 2. By this petition under Article 227 he challenged the award dated 19-3-1985 (Annexure D) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Jabalpur whereby the dispute concerning his classification on the higher post and for payment of salary of that post referred under section 10 (1) (d) of the0 industrial Disputes Act has been answered in favour of the petitioner as workman on merits but no relief has been granted to him on the ground that it was not proved that the individual dispute of the petitioner as workman was supported and sponsored by a substantial number of workmen employed in the industry and represented by the Union namely Chhindwara Zila Koyala Khadan Karmachari Sangh.

(2.) THE facts in necessary details of the case are as follows : The petitioner was working as Raising/loading Mate. By order passed on 1-1-1981 by the Manager of Rawan Wara Khas Colliery, the petitioner Nazrul Hassan siddiqui was appointed and authorised to work as Traffic Incharge. His duties were setting the shifts, movement of tube, ensuring standard of loading etc. The petitioner continued to work and discharged duties of Traffic Incharge and therefore, made a demand for being regularised on that post and payment of higher salary for the work discharged on that post. Since the employer did not accede to the demands, he raised a dispute through the above mentioned employees' union. It was taken up in conciliation and ultimately a joint reference with regard to two employees was made and the petitioner was one of them. The terms of reference were as under : "whether the action of the management of Coal Fields Limited, in relation to their Rawan Wara Khan Colliery in not accepting the recommendations of the Distt. Medical Board, Chhindwara and declaring Shri Premdas Compounder unfit for service and not regularising Shri Nazrul Hassan as Traffic Incharge and paying his difference of wages from 1-1-1981 is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled for? (The underlined (in italics) part of the reference is in relation to the conditions of service of the present petitioner.)

(3.) BEFORE the Labour Court the respondent employer apart from contesting the case on merits raised an objection that the dispute referred was not an industrial dispute but was an individual dispute which can become an industrial dispute only when it is supported by substantial number of workmen employed and is espoused by a recognised union.