Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ispat Khadan Janta Mazdoor Union vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. on 11 December, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2007)IILLJ625MP
Author: Dipak Misra
Bench: Chief Justice, Dipak Misra
ORDER Dipak Misra, J.
1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, the appellant, Ispat Khadan Janta Mazdoor Union (hereinafter referred to as 'the Union") has called in question the presentableness of the order dated October 5, 2005 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. (s) No. 5073/2005.
2. The Central Government by notification dated March 17, 1993 prohibited contract labour in the steel industries which compelled the petitioner-Union along with its workmen to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, forming the subject-matter of W. P. No. 921/1997 seeking absorption under the principal employer, Steel Authority of India (SAIL), as regular employees. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition on the foundation of the decision rendered in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation v. Union Labour Union and directed that the contract labours mentioned in the list annexed to the petition whose names are found in the statutory register maintained under the Mines Act and the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'CLRA') are deemed to be in the direct employment of the principal employer and they should be given work and pay at par with the regular employees of the SAIL. Be it noted, while the matter was pending for adjudication in the writ petition, an industrial dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Jabalpur, on May 14, 1997. The learned single Judge restricted the role of the Industrial Tribunal only to the extent of verification of statutory registers.
3. Against the verdict of the learned single Judge L.P.A. No. 326/1997 was preferred. The said LPA was transferred along with other connected LPAs to the Apex Court. After the transfer of the cases to the Apex Court, in the case of Steel Authority of India and Ors. v. National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors. the Apex Court overruled the decision rendered in Air India Statutory Corporation (supra) and remitted the LPAs back to the High Court for adjudication in the light of the said decision.
4. After the matters were sent back, a Division Bench of this Court decided the LPAs and annulled the earlier reference in view of the Constitution Bench judgment rendered in National Union Waterfront Workers and Others (supra) and directed the industrial dispute to be raised in a certain broader spectrum. Thereafter the Central Government after following the requisite procedure made the following reference for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal:
7. Whether the action of the Mines Manager, Koteshwar Lime Stone Mines Authority of India Ltd. in terminating services of 3604 (3580+ 24, as per list attached) mine workers in March, 1996 who ceased to be contractor labour after prohibition of employment of contract labour in Lime Stone Mine vide Notification No. S. O. 707 dated March 17, 1993 was legal, fair and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workmen or heirs in case of deceased worker are entitled for?
2. Whether the action of the Mines Manager, Koteshwar Lime Stone Mines of Steel Authority of India Ltd. in denying terminal benefits of gratuity, retrenchment compensation and ex gratia applicable to VRS seeking employees is fair justified. If not, to what relief these workers/heirs are entitled to?
3. Whether the action of the management of the Mines Manager, Koteshwar Lime Stone Mines of Steel Authority of India Ltd. in disregarding Clause-8 of Memorandum of Agreement signed between the Steel Authority of India, New Delhi and their Unions including contractors on jobs of permanent and perennial nature in Mines between 5-20 years even without ensuring statutory wages and service conditions was legal, fair and justified? If not, to what relief concerned workmen/heirs are entitled?
5. Be it placed on record after the LPAs were disposed of by the Division Bench the Union assailed the order in a Special Leave Petition wherein the Apex Court passed the following order:
One of the question for decision is whether or not the employment through contract labour IS SHAM AND BOGUS. These are questions, which will require adjudication before an appropriate forum. The writ Court may not be the appropriate forum to decide this question. We, therefore, direct the appropriate Government to refer this question to Industrial Tribunal who will whether or not the alleged employment through Contractor is sham and bogus and whether in fact there is direct employment by the Company.
We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits either way. Undoubtedly, it will be open to both the parties to raise all contentions available to them before the Industrial Tribunal?
6. After the said order was passed the Central Government made an additional reference which is as under:
Whether the employment of the workmen mentioned in this Ministry's order of even number dated January 27, 2003 through contractors is sham and bogus and whether in effect there is direct employment by the company? If so, to what relief the workman concerned are entitled?
7. Though the matter was referred and there was direction for disposal of the reference but the same was not disposed of and series of adjournments were granted. Because of this situation, the appellant-Union filed an application for interim relief. After number of adjournments eventually on April 11, 2005 the Tribunal rejected the application for interim relief. The said order was assailed in W.P. No. 5073/2005 before the learned single Judge. Without pressing for grant of any interim relief, a prayer was made for expeditious disposal of the dispute pending before the Tribunal. The learned single Judge recording the broad consensus of the parties issued the following directions:
(1) Evidence of the petitioner shall be recorded as far as possible within a period of six weeks, thereafter the evidence of the employer shall be recorded within six weeks.
(2) Let efforts be made by the CGIT to decide the case itself as jointly agreed within four months.
(3) Order shall be carried out punctually by the parties. No undue adjournment shall be granted by the CGIT as the case pertains to large number of employees.
(4) In case, case is delayed by the Management, Tribunal shall be justified in closing their right to adduce the evidence itself.
8. Challenging the aforesaid order the union and the workmen preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court as at that time LPA was not maintainable. After introduction of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khanda Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 the present writ appeal has been preferred.
9. Mr. P. Sadashivan Nair, learned senior counsel being assisted by Mr. Shreyash Dharmadhikari for the appellant submitted that despite the order passed the learned single Judge there has been total non-co-operation from the Management and with the passage of time, the life-sparks of some of the employees have got extinguished. What was once a claim for the living has, at present in certain cases where employees are no more, been metamorphosed to be a total money claim. Proponent (sic) of Mr. Nair, learned senior counsel is that money can never substitute life. However, the learned Counsel would submit though living members could not enjoy their status and money at least their legal representatives could not be thrown to streets and they should in all fairness be able to live with some kind of acceptable dignity which is the basic facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
10. Mr. Kishore Shrivastava, learned senior counsel along with Mr. R.C. Shrivastava appearing for the respondent, Management submitted that the Management has never adopted dilatory tactics and always showed its keen interest to get the dispute resolved and, therefore, the blame cannot be put entirely on the Steel Authority of India.
11. An industrial dispute of this nature has its own sacrosanctity. The purpose is to resolve the dispute as per law in quite promptitude, and not to linger on. The workers who are fighting for their rights and to earn a status, cannot be the victim of procrastination. If poor people are compelled to remain in a state of continuous peril the stream of time which has shattered the Cities and Nations, as said by Robert Ingersoll, from the sand enshrouded Egypt from the marble, wilderness of Athens and from every fallen crumbling stone of the once mighty Rome comes a wail, as it were the cry that no nation founded on injustice can permanently stand - would govern the frontiers. If an industrial dispute continues for such a long period the humane problem would increase in enormous proportions and in the ultimate eventuate, the dispute would be only a sequel to the lis of all dead men. It is not to be forgotten that society consists of "the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid when a right is sought to be achieved". Tribunal cannot afford to conduct the proceeding in a mechanical manner to grant adjournment after adjournment, as that would ostracise the fundamental concept of justice from a body polity which is governed by Rule of law. A delayed adjudication, especially a lis of this nature, does annihilate justice. One is compelled to say "Awake, Arise. 'O' Partha". "How long shall you be in slumber". Such delay not only defeats justice but also crucifies Rule of law.
12. An adjudicator is required to pinpoint the real and substantial point of reference and focus the attention thereon. One may call these issues for points of reference or controversies by giving it any name, but the decision-making process in a reference, in a case relating to such enormous human problem, has to be addressed in quite promptitude Adjudicatory process cannot be prolonged, for such prolongation may give rise to instability, uncertainty, disorder unrest, tension and industrial anarchy. An early adjudication of an industrial dispute dispels doubt in the mind of the people who suffer from impecuniosity that their claims would not be dealt with at the earliest and they would be driven to the streets. Their cry for justice as per law, has to be answered. A trust is reposed in an adjudicator for early disposal. It is codified trust. Edmund Burke aptly spoke once:
All persons possessing a portion of powers ought to be strongly and awfully impressed with an idea that they act in trust, and they are to account for their conduct, in that trust to the one great master, author and founder of society.
13. In this context we may refer with profit to the statement made by Abraham Lincoln:
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it.
14. An Industrial Tribunal cannot treat the persons fighting for their claims as unpersons and take its own time to adjudicate the lis because by such procrastination the cause of justice is guillotined? The soul of a man fighting for his rights gets mortgaged and slowly he loses his self-respect. No one should be constrained to feel that his dignity is mortgaged or watered.
15. In view of the aforesaid analysis, while declining to entertain any prayer for grant of any interim relief, we direct that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal shall adjudicate the reference within a period of six months. The Tribunal would be well advised, to record the evidence of parties on day-to-day basis, and would not grant adjournment on mere asking. The Tribunal after deciding the matter shall intimate the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court by filing a compliance report. It is hereby made clear that no extension shall be granted.
16. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.