RAMCHANDRA THAKUR AND OTHERS Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, CHHOTANAGPUR DIVISION, RANCHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this writ application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 23-9-1972 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, Respondent No. 1, by which it was held that B. S. Cases Nos. 25, 26, 27,28,29 and 30 of 1971 under S. 26 (2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act (hereinafter called the Act) Court, Chhotanagpur (Roy J.) 1791 were not maintainable. This order is annexure '2' to this writ application.

(2.) All the complainants were the employees of the National Coal Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") which has its head office at Ranchi. All the petitioners were technicians, and, at the relevant time, were posted at the Central Electrical and Mechanical Workshop of the Corporation at Korba in Madhya Pradpesh. In Korba, there were Coal Mines belonging to the Corporation, Respondent No. 2. While the petitioners were so posted at the said Central Workshop at Korba, they were charge-sheeted and ultimately after domestic enquiry, they were dismissed from service by order dated 14-1-1971 with effect from 15-1- 1971, which is annexure '1' to this writ application. The petitioners, thereafter, separately filed complaints against the Corporation, respondent No. 2 under S. 26 (2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act to the Labour Court at Ranchi, challenging the order of dismissal. The Corporation filed -their show cause in the Labour Court and raised two preliminary issues, viz., (i) the Labour Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain these complaints because the complainants-petitioners were in employment at Madhya Pradesh; (ii) The workshop of the Corporation at Korba being a mine within the definition of S. 2 (1) (j) of the Mines Act and having been declared as such by the Central Government under S. 82 of the said Act, it ought to be held that in view of S. 4 of the Act, the cases of the petitioners were outside the purview of the Act.

(3.) By the impugned order, the Labour Court, respondent No. 1, held that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints but dismissed the complaints on the ground that the said workshop was a mine and, therefore, the complaint petitions were not maintainable under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act. Shri P. K. Sinha, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners contended that the Central Electrical and Mechanical Workshop of the Corporation at Korba was not a mine as defined in S. 2 (1) (j) (vii) of the Mines Act. Shri Sinha further contended that the certificate issued by the Central Government under S. 82 of the Mines Act was bad in law and, therefore, the finding of the Labour Court on the basis of the said certificate is liable to be set aside.