SHEO CHAND KUMAR Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the order dated 4.4.1996 passed by respondent No. 6, the Project Officer (Washery), BCCL, Dhanbad of the respondents -BCCL whereby the provisional appointment given to the petitioners has been withdrawn and they have been stopped from doing their duties. These writ petitioners, who are 11 in number, also seek a direction upon the respondents to reinstate them in service with full back wages pursuant to the award dated 3.3.1983 passed in Reference Case No. 58/91.

(2.) THIS case has a very chequered history. The petitioners along with others, at one point of time, were working as contract labours in the erstwhile company which was subsequently taken over by the respon -dents -BCCL. Those employees although became the employees of the BCCL and worked from December, 1979 to January, 1981 but they were removed from service, Consequent there upon an industriat dispute was raised and the matter was referred to the labour Court to adjudicate whether the management of BCCL was justified in not absorbing 39 workmen including the petitioners as their regular employees. The award was published on 3.3.1983 and by the said award the respondent -BCCL was directed to reinstate all those 39 workmen including the petitioners with full back wages. When the award was not implemented, some of the beneficiaries, 18 in number, moved this Court for the implementation of the award. The matter reached up to the Supreme Court. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Supreme Court those 18 persons were regularized in service.

(3.) WHEN the report of the Regional Labour Commissioner was not given effect to, the petitioners again moved this Court in CWJC No. 3092/94(R). The writ petition was disposed of on 4.4.1995 with a direction to the management -respondent to provisionally reinstate the petitioners and get their identity established to their satisfaction. It was also directed that if the management so feels it necessary, it may also get a police verification and antecedent report etc. of these petitioners. When the said judgment was not complied with the petitioners filed MJC No. 127/95(R) which was disposed of on 17.7.1995 with some direction which shall be referred hereinafter. The petitioners were again identified by the Regional Labour Commissioner and a finding was recorded in favour of the petitioners in his report dated 19.10.1995. Inspite of the aforesaid finding the petitioners were not regularized in service, rather, their provisional appointment was withdrawn by the impugned order dated 3/4.4.1996. One of the petitioners again moved this Court in contempt which was subsequently converted into a writ petition being CWJC No. 1522/ 96 The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 8.9.2003 on technical ground with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition. Hence this writ application.