EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF JEALGORA COLLIERY OF M/S.B.C.C.L Vs. THEIR WORKMEN OF JEALGORA COLLIERY THROUGH ITS SEC.B.C.K.UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THIS appeal is by the Management. The appellant challenges the decision of the learned Single Judge setting aside a notice of termination of an Award in terms of Section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and issuing a direction which, according to the appellant, went against the prior binding direction issued by a Division Bench of this Court.

(3.) ALL this time, the Union did not produce the photographs and the affidavits as directed by the Division Bench in the order passed in Civil Review No. 59 of 1994. But 20 persons applied for employment claiming to be the beneficiaries of the Award. No affidavits were filed asserting that they were the persons concerned. The Management took the stand that the photographs were not routed through the Union and that they were not accompanied by affidavits as contemplated by the order in Civil Review No. 59 of 1994. Thereafter by letter dated 6/12.3.1998, the Management gave a notice to the Union under Section 19{6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, of the intention to terminate the Award on the expiry of the period of two months from that date in terms of Section 19 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There was some correspondence based on the said notice. Ultimately, the Union filed an application in the Supreme Court praying for a modification of the earlier order and seeking a direction to be issued to the Deputy Commissioner to decide on the question of identification of the beneficiaries of the Award. By An -nexure -12 order dated 24.2.1994, the Supreme Court dismissed that application as misconceived. The Union filed CWJC No. 47 of 2000 in this Court on 20.1.2000 praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the communication issued by the Management intimating the Union that the Management had already terminated Award dated 19.5.1992 and for an appropriate direction calling upon the Management to implement the Award in question . The Union took the stand that the Management had no right to terminate the Award in terms of Section 19(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the unilateral action of the Management was unsustainable and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The Union also argued, presumably based on Section 19(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, that the Award of this nature could not be terminated by recourse to subsection (3) and (6) of Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Management resisted the writ petition by submitting that the Union never complied with the direction contained in the order in Civil Review No. 59 of 1994 and hence there was no occasion for the Management to accept any workman as beneficiary of the Award, and it was in that situation, and after a considerable lapse of time, that the Management issued the impugned notice, Annexure -13 and that there was no reason to interfere with the direction of the Management. It was also submitted that in the light of the binding direction earlier issued by the Division Bench and affirmed by the Supreme Court, no relief could be granted to the Union on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.