LAWS(JHAR)-2014-2-71

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF BASTACOLLA AREA NO. IX OF BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED Vs. THEIR WORKMEN

Decided On February 13, 2014
Employers in relation to the Management of Bastacolla Area No. IX of Bharat Coking Coal Limited Appellant
V/S
THEIR WORKMEN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Award dated 5.4.2006 rendered by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Ref. No. 119 of 1997 (Annexure-4)_ whereby, learned Tribunal has answered the reference and hold that Jaldhar Bhuiya and 131 others were engaged as coal loaders for truck loading job by the Management of Bastacolla Area No. IX of M/s. BCCL is correct and justified and that they are entitled for regularization as piece rated workers on the job of loading of coal in truck or wagons. Learned Tribunal has further directed to regularize the concerned workmen as piece rated workers.

(2.) According to the petitioner, they have their own permanent wagon loaders. But coal is also sold locally under various coal sales schemes and in the process of such local sale, the purchasers lift coal from the coal depot and get the same loaded in their own truck/wagon by the persons engaged by them. The coal purchasers commonly known as D.O. Holders engage their own men for loading of coal and they directly make payment of remuneration to such loaders. The workers brought for that purpose leave the depot along with the truck and D.O. Holders. The persons who are engaged by D.O. Holders and work on their instruction and supervision have no concern with the petitioner. The concerned workmen were the persons engaged by D.O. Holders. They were engaged by the D.O. Holders and worked under their control and supervision. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the Management and the concerned workmen. They are strangers to the petitioner. They were not issued any identity card, CMPF number or any letter of engagement. The purchasers/D.O. Holders are not contractors within the meaning of section 2 (c) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. The respondent-Union, however, in order to induct stranger/outsider, started making false and baseless claims asking petitioner company to regularize the concerned workmen. The petitioner is a Government Company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act and 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and are governed by the prescribed provisions and procedure of law. Jaldhar Bhuiya and 131 others were complete strangers and there was never any relationship of employer and employee, they deliberately raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad. Notice was issued to the petitioner-Management to appear for conciliation. The Management appeared and put its objection stating, inter alia, that the concerned workmen were strangers and the dispute said to be raised by them is not an industrial dispute within the meaning of section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The concerned workmen are also not the members of the Union and the Union has no locus standi to raise the dispute/claim for their regularization. Since the claim was deliberately made by the Union regarding strangers, there was no point to be conciliated. Ultimately conciliation failed and a failure report was submitted to the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government by its order dated 26.5.1997 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad for adjudication with following reference.

(3.) Learned Tribunal issued notice to the parties and on receipt thereof, the Management as well as the concerned workmen appeared and filed their respective written statements.