BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED Vs. KALACHAND MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated February 5, 1975, made in Civil Rule No. 355(W) of 1975, by Chittatosh Mookerjee, J., whereby his Lordship was pleased to make the Rule, obtained by respondent No. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), absolute.

(2.) IN the Rule, the petitioner has contended that on or about August 3, 1944, he was appointed as a clerk in the Union Angarpathra Colliery (hereinafter referred to as the said colliery), under the Union Coal Company Ltd., respondent No. 5 herein (hereinafter referred to as the said company). The said colliery has been alleged to be a Coking Coal Mine and the said company at all material times was under the common management with Khas Junagore Colliery Company (P) Ltd., Central Junagore Coal Company (P) Ltd., New Heanagore Coal Company and the New Manbhoom Coal Company Ltd. He has further alleged that since such appointment, he duly served the said colliery and ultimately in September, 1957 he was made the Supervisor on promotion. He has also alleged that while discharging his duties as such, in or about August, 1970, he was transferred to the head office of the said colliery at Calcutta as an accounts clerk. The petitioner has further stated at all material times he was a contributory to the Coal Mines Provident Fund and such contribution used to be sent to the authorities concerned under the Coal Mines Provident Fund Act and the scheme framed thereun der. In support of such statements, the petitioner has also duly pleaded the relevant facts in the petition, apart from referring to the necessary evidence. The petitioner has further alleged that his pay and allowances on such transfer was fixed at Rs. 425. The transfer order which is at Annexure 'A' of the petition and would be of relevant consideration shows that on such transfer, the petitioner was required to deal with all matters of the said company and even after his transfer he continued to be in the employment of the said colliery, and furtheremore, the raising of coal therein and other matters required for the management and running of the same were controlled by the said company's head office at Calcutta, i.e., from the office where he was transferred. He in short has alleged that direction, control and supervision of the said colliery was with the said head office.

(3.) THE petitioner has alleged that after such taking over of the management and subsequent nationalisation of the various coal mines, the respondents have assumed charge of the records of the head office as aforesaid and have continued the employment of large number of employees of the said head office. He has stated that in fact the operation of the coking coal mine concerned was not. possible except through the management from the said head office, wherein he was employed in connection with the said colliery.