EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF MUDIDIH COLLIERY OF SIJUA AREA, BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner (the Management of Mudidih Colliery of Sijua Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited) has challenged the validity of the notification dated 29 -1 -1999 (Annexure -8) issued by the Desk Officer, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi (respondent No. 2), whereby and where under the following dispute has been referred for adjudication under the provision of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"):

(2.) THE facts of this case are necessary to be considered and taken note of. According to the petitioner, one R.K. Prasad (concerned workman) was proceeded against departmentally vide charge sheet dated 19 -10 -1948. At Paragraph 9 of the writ application, it has been stated that the enquiry proceedings were adjourned time again and finally the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the workman was avoiding and therefore, he proceeded and the proceedings were concluded ex parte on 11 -6 -1985. Thereafter the enquiry report was submitted on 18 -6 - 1985 holding that Sri R.K. Prasad was guilty of misconduct. Thereafter the report and other documents were examined by the disciplinary authority and an order of dismissal was passed on 31 -12 -1985. Being, aggrieved, the concerned workman raised an industrial dispute which finally led to the submission of a failure Report and consequent reference to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the following dispute:

(3.) BEFORE proceeding any further, it would be relevant, therefore, to briefly dwell on the principle point of reference, which became a subject matter of Reference Case No. 279 of 1986 referred to above. The reference was that the concerned workman who was dis - missed from service from 31 -12 -1985 demanded that the action of the management was unjustified and, therefore, he should be reinstated in service. In answer to this, the Tribunal passed the Award holding that the demand of the concerned workman to the effect that he should be reinstated was not justified and that the concerned workman was not entitled to any relief.