MAHABIR MAHATO Vs. CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. These 2 petitioners have alleged in the present writ application that in the garb of identification of these petitioners a de-novo inquiry has been initiated by the respondent-CCL to deny the claim of regularization of these 2 workmen along with 54 others whose verification process have already been undertaken by the Registrar General of this Court pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeals No. 1600-1601/2005 (Annexure-1).

(2.) In respect of the petitioner No. 1, Mahabir Mahato, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it may not have been necessary on the part of the respondents to once again require a fresh identification process to ensure the bonafides of the petitioner, who furnished a duly filled proforma prescribed by the respondent-CCL and authenticated in his favour by the same learned advocate who had identified the present petitioner No. 1 during the course of verification inquiry before the learned Registrar General of this Court. Despite that the respondents have chosen to take into account irrelevant considerations in order to deny his claim as would appear from the extracts of the identification proceeding conducted by them as Annexure-H to the counter affidavit and more specifically in respect of the petitioner No. 1 whose name is reflected at Item No. III at page 121. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that so far as the physical identification of the workmen is concerned, one can understand that productions of the photograph duly identified by the learned Advocate and proforma attested by the BDO/CO may be necessary requirement but the respondents have undertaken exercise by taking statements of the persons concerned before a committee which is wholly unwarranted since the matter has become final after the report of the learned Registrar General of this Court, pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In respect of petitioner No. 2, Ramsingar Singh, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that he has not received any communication for furnishing the prescribed proforma issued by the respondent-CCL and if the authorities permit him or if he is directed to furnish the said proforma, he will surely prove his physical identity in the same manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in order to further substantiate the claim as being the same person in whose respect the verification process for identifying their physical identity has been under taken by the Registrar General of this Court, the certified copy of the original enclosures which form part of the report of the Registrar General shall also be produced on their behalf before the respondent-CCL.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent-CCL in turn submitted that the entire exercise was necessitated because of claim made by more than 1 person having same name, and, therefore, physical identification by fulfilling the necessary prescribed proforma and its authentication by the learned Lawyer concerned or any other competent authority was required in order to comply with the directions for the regularization of these identified workmen by the respondent-CCL. The said exercise having been undertaken, the petitioner should not complain as it is only intended to grant benefit of regularization to the bonafide person and not interloper/stranger. However, the respondent-CCL submits that if the petitioner fulfills the prescribed proforma and also furnishes the supporting documents as were part of the proceedings before the learned Registrar General in the verification process, their claim would be considered in accordance with law for grant of regularization pursuant to their identification, as aforesaid.