Dhanbad Colliery Karamchari Sa vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 October, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Jharkhand High Court

Dhanbad Colliery Karamchari Sa vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 October, 2009

Bench: D.G.R. Patnaik

              IN THE HIGHT COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                   W.P. (L) No. 1100 of 2004
                                              ---
       Dhanbad Colliery Karamchari Sangh                              Petitioner
                                            Versus
       1. Union of India through Assistant Labour Commissioner
          (Central), Dhanbad
       2. Employers in relation to Management of East Katras Colliery
          of M/s BCCL, Dhanbad                                        Respondents
                                              ---
       Coram:         Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.G.R. Patnaik
                                               ---
       For the Petitioner:  Mr. S.K. Laik, Advocate
       For the Respondents: Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate
                                              ----
       4. 05.10.2009

The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for a direction upon the respondent no. 1 to initiate a conciliation proceeding with regard to the dispute raised by the petitioner relating to non-providing of employment to the members of the petitioner union by the respondent BCCL.

2. From the pleadings of the petitioner, it appears that they were employed under the private contractor namely, Sahadeo Tiwary for executing certain works in the colliery of the respondent BCCL. Admittedly, the members of the petitioner union had continued to render their job under the private contractor till the year 1984 and thereafter, they were stopped from working.

3. Claiming that the job of stone cutting, executed by the members of the petitioner Association, was declared by the Government as a job of prohibitory category, and that the BCCL was essentially the employer since payment of the members of the petitioner union was used to be paid by them through the contractor, the petitioner had sought to raise an industrial dispute and had filed an application before the respondent no. 1 namely, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, praying for initiating a conciliation proceeding.

The grievance of the petitioner union is that the Assistant Labour Commissioner has not passed any order, nor taken any initiative to start the conciliation proceeding at all.

4. Shri A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents, while inviting attention to the undisputed facts, would argue that the members of the petitioner union, even according to their own admission, were employed by the private contractor and furthermore, their services were stopped from being taken since 1984 and as such, there could be no industrial dispute involving the respondent BCCL.

5. From the facts stated in the writ application, there does not appear any industrial disputed fact which can genuinely be raised by the petitioner and furthermore, the claim of their regularization does not survive, since after termination of their services in 1984.

6. I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.

(D.G.R. Patnaik, J) Ranjeet/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court