BHARAT COKING COAL LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M. Rohtagi learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Prasad learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and in view of the question of law involved in this writ application the same is disposed of with the consent of the parties at the admission stage.

(2.) THE petitioner M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing notices issued by the respondent Assistant Labour Commissioner whereby he has called upon the Chairman -cum - Managing Director and Secretary of the Company besides other officers to show -cause as to why legal action for their prosecution under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act be not taken against them for the alleged violation of the Settlement and the award passed by the Labour Court and the Tribunal.

(3.) MR . M. Rohtagi learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that petitioner Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. is a vast organisation spread into hundreds of kilometres involved in mining/extraction of coal in various mines situated at for of places and its head office as situated at Dhanbad. There are about 1,16.000 men on its roll working and spread over 84 mines which is classified and under the fold of 15 area General Manager/Chief General Manager who are incharge and responsible for its day to day function. Learned Counsel submitted that petitioner company with the approval of the competent authority named and prescribed the authorities to act as employer under Section 2(g) of the said Act in respect of the establishment under their respective jurisdiction who were competent to sign settlements, written statements and other pleading required to be filed before the Conciliation Officer, Industrial Tribunals and the Labour Court. These Officers have been made responsible for compliance of all labour laws in respect of their respective jurisdiction. Accordingly the Area Chief General Manager/ General Manager of the mining area were named as employers, head of the department of the respective colliery. Mr. Rohtagi drawn my attention to the relevant provisions of the Act and submitted that in the event of non -Implementation of the settlements or the award prosecution ought to have been initiated against the officers responsible for the implementation of the Award. Learned Counsel relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, (1983) 1 SCC 1 and in the case of State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal and Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 343.