RAM DULAR KUMHAR Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the office order dated 24.08.2010 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of respondent no. 4 (Project Officer, Godhur Colliery, BCCL), whereby the Project Officer has directed the respondent no. 5 (Manager, Godhur Colliery, BCCL) to utilize the services of the petitioners on surface and not to give them any underground work. It has further been prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to make payment of monthly underground allowance as also its arrears from the date it was illegally stopped.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners were working as underground munshi under the respondent-Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. The service condition of the petitioners are governed by National Coal Wages Agreement (hereinafter referred as 'NCWA' in short) which is a settlement in terms with Sec. 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). Chapter IV of the NCWA deals with underground allowances which provides that underground allowance shall be treated as wages and will be taken into account for the purposes mentioned in chapter IV of the NCWA.

(3.) It is further submitted that the petitioners used to receive underground allowance continuously @ 12.5% of the basic pay till 24.08.2010 without any break. However, the respondent no. 4 (Project Officer, Godhur Colliery) vide his office order dated 24.08.2010, without giving any prior notice to the petitioners, directed the respondent no. 5 (Manager, Godhur Colliery, BCCL) to utilize the services of the petitioners on surface and not to give them any underground work. After issuance of the office order dated 24.08.2010, all of them were posted on surface duty and they have not been paid their monthly underground allowance w.e.f. 25.08.2010 and their wages have substantially decreased, which is evident from the pay slips issued to them. It is also submitted that the action of the respondents is in violation to Clause 21 of the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the petitioners which reads as follows:-