EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF DHARMABANDH COLLIERY OF M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2 AT DHANBAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the Management of the B.C.C.L. has challenged the award dated 18th June, 1996 passed by the Industrial Tribunal (No.2), Dhanbad in Ref. Case no. 9 of 1987 whereby the learned Industrial Tribunal has held that refusal to absorb the dependant of Smt. Lukhu Mahatain, Shale Picker to provide. with a job of casual nature, as Lukhu Mahatain was declared medically unfit to be unjust, and therefore, direction was given that the dependant, Lukhu Mahatain would apply with such prayer to the Management through the sponsoring union within one month from the passing of the Award and the management will absorb him as casual worker.

(2.) FROM perusal of the award under challenge, it appears that the learned Tribunal after considering the materials on record has held that Lukhu Mahatain worked till 1980 and she was in service till then. Second findings of fact of the learned Tribunal is that the concerned workman was a casual worker but she was performing the permanent nature of job.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Indrajit Sinha learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 referring Clause 9.4.3 of N.C.W.A. III has submitted that the language used in the said provision does not differentiate between a permanent worker or a casual worker. He further submits that the point of delay raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was never raised at any stage and therefore, he cannot be allowed to raise at this stage.