EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO BARAREE COKE PLANT OF B C C LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO II DHANBAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has got a chequered history. Diplal Singh, a watchman working under bararee Coke Plant, was terminated by the management by the notice dated October 12, 1971 with effect from October 19, 1971. The said Coke Plant was taken over by the Central government under the Emergency Provisions act through Gazette dated December 23, 1971 giving retrospective effect from October 16, 1971. A dispute was raised by the workman after about nine years of termination. Consequently, the Central Government referred the dispute to the Tribunal. Bharat Coking Coal limited, the present employer, contested the matter contending that Diplal Singh, the workman, was not the workman under them since the management of Bararee Coke Plant was taken over by the Central Government only on December 27, 1971 by a notification and in the meantime, the workman was terminated even as early as on October 19, 1971 and at the time of taking over of the management, the workman was not on the roll of the former employer, Bararee Coke Plant. It was also contended that Bararee Coke Company, the erstwhile employer, was not impleaded as a party and before, the reference is not maintainable. However, after enquiry, the: tribunal, by the award dated January 12, 1983, found in favour of the workman and held that the workman continued to be the employee of bararee Coke Plant and further held that the order of termination was not passed in: accordance with law and as such, it is illegal. The Tribunal also directed for the reinstatement of the workman, Diplal Singh, with back wages with effect from May 1,1972, the date on which the Coking Coal Mines were placed under bharat Coking Coal Limited under the Act 1972. The appellant-management challenged the award before the Patna High Court in writ petition, being C. W. J. C. No. 686/1983-R. A single Bench of this Court, vide its order dated, july 18, 1989, allowed the writ petition, quashing the award mainly holding that the reference was invalid as the erstwhile employer who had terminated the service of the workman was not impleaded. Thus, the writ petition was allowed and the award dated January 12, 1983 passed by the Tribunal was quashed. The workman represented by Rashtriya colliery Mazdoor Sangh, challenging the order dated July 18, 1989 passed by the learned single judge, filed an appeal before the Division bench in L. P. A. No. 96/1989-R. The Division bench of this Court, by its order dated september 21, 1998, allowed the appeal holding that Bararee Coke Company Ltd. , the erstwhile employer, could not have terminated the service of the workman with effect from october 19, 1971 in its own right because it was divested of all its rights and powers of management even prior to the said date. The division Bench gave a finding that the erstwhile employer, Bararee Coke Company ltd. was not a necessary party to the reference and therefore, the award of the Tribunal can be considered on merit by the learned single Judge and thereby remanded the matter to the learned single Judge for a decision on merit in accordance with law.

(2.) AFTER remand, the case was heard by the learned single Judge. Ultimately, learned single judge, by the order dated October 7, 1999, upheld the award passed by the Tribunal so far as it relates to termination of service of the concerned workman. However, the learned single Judge held that since the workman raised the industrial dispute after more than nine years, he would be entitled to back wages not from May 1, 1972, but from the date of the award i. e. January 12, 1983. Thus, the award of the Tribunal was modified to the extent that besides reinstatement, the workman was allowed to be entitled to back wages with effect from the date of the award. With such modification, the writ petition, C. W. C. J. No. 686/1983-R, was allowed in part

(3.) THE appellant-management had challenged the said order dated October 7, 1999 and filed an appeal in L. P. A. No. 498/99-R before the Division Bench. The management in the appeal again raised the question of maintainability of the reference and the legality of the award passed by the Tribunal contending that the reference is invalid in the absence of impleading erstwhile employer, Bararee Coke company Ltd. , who had terminated the service of the workman, apart from other grounds. The division Bench felt that Bararee Coke company Ltd. , the erstwhile employer, had a right to act of their own till December 22, 1971 and as such, the termination would be considered to have been made by the erstwhile employer and not by the present employer and raising the said doubt, the Division Bench, by its order dated July 11, 2002. referred the matter to Full Bench to decide the issue and correctness of the finding of the earlier Division bench rendered in L. P. A. No. 96/ 1989-R with reference to absence of the necessary party. The full Bench, by the order dated August 20, 2003, allowed the appeal and quashed the award of the tribunal, accepting the view of the Division bench, which referred to Full Bench, and held that the award cannot be upheld in the absence of impleadment of necessary party. Aggrieved by this, the workman represented by Rashtriya colliery Mazdoor Sangh filed an appeal in Civil appeal No. 4589/2004 before the Supreme court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, taking strong exception of the attitude of the Full bench in deciding about the issue with reference to the impleadment of the necessary party, which has already attained finality in the order of the earlier Division Bench, set aside the said order passed by the Full Bench and: remanded the matter to the Division Bench by the order dated October 27, 2005, asking the division Bench to go into the order questions relating to the entitlement to the benefits under section 17 etc. In the said order, it was specifically stated that there is no liberty to the parties to reagitate the points already decided. That is how, the matter has come before this court on the basis of the remand order passed by the Supreme Court.