EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a Judgment and order dated 5th June, 1996 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Matter No. 948 of 1990 whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge dismissed the writ application filed by the Appellant herein questioning an Award dated 28th March 1984 and published in the Gazette on 19th April 1994, of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, the respondent number 1 herein. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.

(2.) The concerned workmen who were seventy-one in number had been working in Sodepur sub area of the Appellant Company as casual Wagon loaders. A notification was issued by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 whereby and whereunder employment of contract labour inter alia in the matter of loading and unloading of coal was abolished. The said notification came into force with effect from First May, 1974. According to the Appellant upon abolition of employment of the contract labour in terms of the aforementioned notification, the concerned workmen had been working as casual workmen as and when their services were required. However, admittedly, 401 workmen used to be engaged on casual basis for the purpose of loading of coal on the wagons. The Appellant alleges that for the purpose of appointing such casual workmen on a regular basis a screening committee was constituted in consultation with a Trade Union whereupon, all other casual workmen except the workmen in question had been appointed. An Industrial Dispute was raised through another union and upon submission of the report by the Conciliation Officer the Central Government issued a notification on or about First August, 1978 in exercise of its power under section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 in terms whereof the following dispute was referred for adjudiction before the First respondent herein;

(3.) The learned Tribunal considering the materials on records placed by the parties to the said dispute inter alia came to a finding of fact that at least for about sixteen months, i.e. in between First May 1974 and August 1975 the concerned workmen had exclusively worked as casual employees of the colliery management. It was further found that in the matter of loading and unloading of coal the casual workers are not strictly speaking casual labour. Upon taking into consideration the other materials on records and further in view of the fact that even the management absorbed 18 out of 71 concerned workmen the learned Tribunal was of the view that action on the part of the management in denying employment of 71 casual wagon loaders was not justified. The Appellant filed a writ application before this court. Before the learned trial Judge as also us, Mr. Ginwalla the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant inter alia submitted that in the strict sense of the provision of this Act, a casual workman is not a workman in-as-much as he does not and cannot be given any benefit of a regular workman by the management and in that view of the matter the entire reference was bad in law. The learned counsel further submitted that the concerned workmen did not derive any right to be permanently absorbed in service only on the basis of abolition of contract labour. According to the learned counsel the findings of the learned trial Judge upholding the award cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the respondent No. 1 did not arrive at the said finding on the basis of any materials on record.