RASTRIYA MAZDOOR UNION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case was taken up through Video Conferencing and heard at length on various dates, lastly on 7/12/2020 and Judgment was reserved and the same is being pronounced today. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding which has been held through Video Conferencing and there is no complaint in respect to audio and video clarity and quality and after hearing at length, the matter is being disposed of finally. PRAYER OF THE PETITIONER

(2.) Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Letter dtd. 25/7/2016, issued under the signature of Sec. Officer, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, whereby dispute regarding termination of the petitioner has been considered as not fit for adjudication. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to refer the industrial dispute raised on behalf of the workman to the appropriate Tribunal/ Board or Court for its proper adjudication. CASE OF THE PETITIONER

(3.) Factual matrix of the case is that after death of his father, pursuant to the office order dtd. 23/3/2001, passed by Manager, Labour of BCCL, the concerned workman was appointed by the respondent - BCCL on compassionate ground on 23/2/2001 as miner loader. While performing his duties, petitioner fell ill and was taken into medical care on 22/7/2004 where he was diagnosed with psychoneurosis, which is a type of mental disorder. Concerned workman was under treatment till 13/6/2005 and after he was declared fit to resume his duties, he approached before the Employer - BCCL and requested to accept his joining and assign him work. When no heed was paid to the request of the petitioner, he filed his representation before the concerned Project Officer on 3/8/2005 clearly mentioning therein about his illness with a request to accept his joining. Said representation was received in the concerned office on 4/8/2005. From the record it transpires that petitioner was issued a chargesheet on 6/9/2005, which was however never served upon the petitioner. Subsequently the workman received a letter dtd. 15/11/2005 whereby he was informed by the enquiry officer to appear before him and to participate in the enquiry fixed on 1/12/2005. Upon receipt of said letter, the workman approached before the concerned enquiry officer and asked him to supply a copy of the charge sheet and other documents, which would be important for the enquiry proceedings, but the same was never supplied to him. thereafter, workman was dismissed from the service vide order dtd. 16/10/2006, passed by the Project Officer, Bhowra Mines, BCCL. After dismissal from the service, the workman received an information that employer - BCCL is re-engaging services of the dismissed employees. Upon such information, the workman filed his representation dtd. 29/12/2011 and 11/4/2012. However, no heed was paid to the request of the workman. Since the concerned workman is illiterate person and as such, with the help of Union, he raised industrial dispute on 28/5/2014 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad seeking his reinstatement.Thereafter, the concerned Union received a letter no. 1/32/ 2014 E.S. dtd. 17/6/2014, addressed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner asking both the parties to be present on the next date of hearing for discussion in the dispute in which he may also initiate conciliation. The employer -BCCL filed its response on 20/10/2014 annexing all relevant documents related to the workman including chargesheet, dismissal letter etc., which was replied by the Union vide rejoinder filed on 29/1/2015. Thereafter, the Union received a letter dtd. 25/7/2016, issued by the Sec. Officer, Ministry of Labour, stating therein that prima facie the Ministry does not consider the dispute fit for adjudication in view of Sec. 2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 as the Union has raised this issue after more than 7 years after termination without justification. Being aggrieved, Union has knocked door of this Court. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER-UNION