Jharkhand High Court
Coal Field Mazdoor Union Represented ... vs The Central Coal Field Ltd Through Its ... on 21 February, 2015
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(L) No. 3870 of 2013
Coal Field Mazdoor Union represented through its president
Mundrika Bhagat, S/o Late Basant Bhagat, R/o village Sirka
Colliery, P.O. Argada, P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Central Coal Field Ltd. through its Chairman cum
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House P.O. GPO
P.S. Kutchery District Ranchi
2. The Personnel Manager CCL, having its office at Darbhanga
House P.O. GPO P.S. Kutchery District Ranchi
3. Chief General, CCL, having its office at Darbhanga House P.O.
GPO P.S. Kutchery District Ranchi ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate
Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate
Order No. 07 Dated: 21.02.2015
Aggrieved by order dated 02.04.2012 in Reference
Case No. 131 of 2001 whereby the action of the respondentCCL
in not providing employment to the dependent of late Parna has
been held justified, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. The brief facts of the case narrated in the writ petition
are that, one Parna was employed as S.F. Khalasi in Argada
Colliery who died in harness on 23.03.1990. His wife namely,
Fulko Devi submitted an application seeking employment for her
elder son namely, Mohan Bedia. In the meantime, Mohan Bedia
died on 04.2.1996 and therefore, Fulko Devi submitted another
application on 25.12.1996 seeking employment for her younger
son namely, Suraj Nath Bedia. Several other applications were
also submitted by Fulko Devi seeking employment for her younger
2
son however, the proposal for employment to Suraj Nath Bedia
was regretted. An industrial dispute was raised by Coalfield
Mazdoor Union and upon failure of the conciliation proceeding,
the Central Government vide order dated 22.05.2001 referred the
dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad. Before the Tribunal the Management
took a stand that the said workman namely, Parna was working
since 01.04.1974 and in his service excerpts of 1987 he has
declared the name of his wife, Fulko Devi and son, Raj Kumar.
The workman abandoned his service with effect from 15.07.1989
and thereafter, his wife made an attempt to get one of her
relatives employed in service by declaring him as the dependent
son. The Industrial Tribunal answered the reference in affirmative
holding that the action of the Management, Argada Colliery of
M/s CCL in not providing employment to the dependent of late
Parna is justified. Aggrieved, the Coalfields Mazdoor Union has
preferred the present writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties
and perused the documents on record.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refers
to paragraph no. 8 in award dated 02.04.2012 wherein, the
Tribunal has recorded, "in the present case the concerned person
has not filed any genuine documents to show that he is the son of
late Parna", and submits that the entire record of conciliation was
produced before the Industrial Tribunal which contains several
documents in support of the claim of Suraj Nath Bedia being the
son of late Parna however, the Industrial Tribunal has not
considered those documents and erroneously answered the
reference in affirmative. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing
for the respondentCCL supports the impugned award and
submits that in view of the fact that the name of Suraj Nath Bedia
does not appear in the service excerpts of the deceased employee,
3
the learned Labour Court has rightly held that no genuine
document has been produced in support of the claim that Suraj
Nath Bedia is the son of late Parna. It is further submitted that the
names of Mohan Bedia and Suraj Nath Bedia were subsequently
written in the service excerpts which does not bear signature of
either the official of respondentCCL or the deceased employee
and thus, cannot be taken into consideration.
5. Vide order dated 06.01.2015, the record of Reference
Case No. 131 of 2001 has been called from the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad. The record of
Reference Case No. 131 of 2001 discloses that on 10.02.2013, a
list of documents was filed on behalf of workman which includes
conciliation file bearing No. 1(22)/2000. An affidavit dated
09.06.207was filed by Suraj Nath Bedia stating that he has filed as many as 11 documents for establishing his claim for appointment in terms of NCWA V. In award dated 02.04.2012, there is no reference of the documents filed by the claimant. As noticed above, the Industrial Tribunal has made a sweeping remark holding that the concerned person has not filed any genuine document to show that he is the son of late Parna.
6. The Preamble to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 makes it abundantly apparent that the Act makes provision for the "investigation and settlement of industrial disputes", and for certain other purposes. Section 11 of the Act deals with procedure, powers and duties of authorities which includes courts and tribunals. Besides devising its own procedure, the court, tribunal, conciliation officer etc. have been vested with wide powers. Keeping in view the object behind the Industrial Disputes Act, the Industrial Tribunal was required to consider the evidence produced on behalf of the claimant. Even otherwise, recording of reasons while adjudicating valuable rights of parties, is the mandate of law. In "Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr."
4(2012) 8 SCC 148, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, "44. It is settled legal proposition that not only administrative order, but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable, particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is the principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decisionmaking. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected."
7. Considering the above facts, the impugned award dated 02.04.2012 is setaside and the matter is remitted back to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad for a fresh adjudication. It is ordered that the Tribunal shall fix a date of hearing and after hearing both the parties, shall pass appropriate order, in accordance with law.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Manish/N.A.F.R.