Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand Colliery Maszddor Un vs C.C.L & Ors on 10 November, 2009
Author: D.G.R. Patnaik
Bench: D.G.R. Patnaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 5493 of 2007
...
The Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union, Ranchi... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi
2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, C.C.L., Ranchi.
3. Director (Personnel), C.C.L., Ranchi.
4. Chief General Manager (Industrial Relation), C.C.L., Ranchi.
5. General Manager (Administration), C.C.L., Ranchi.... Respondents.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - M/s. A. K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate.
& A. K. Sahani, Advocate.
For the Respondents : - Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate.
...
8/10.11.2009Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Prayer in this writ application, as made by the petitioner-Union representing the Drivers, whose detailed particulars have been listed in Annexure- 1, is for a direction upon the Respondents to pay and release the amount in lieu of extra work performed by the members of the petitioner's Union beyond normal duty hours, from the date of their eligibility with interest @ 18 per cent per annum calculated from the date when it fell due and till actual payment. Alternatively, a further prayer has been made for directing the Respondents to fix the duty hours of the members of the petitioner's-Union at par with other similarly situated employees of the Respondent No. 1.
3. The admitted facts of the petitioner's case is as follows: -
The members of the petitioner's union are engaged as Drivers under the various Establishments and units of the Respondent No. 1 including its Headquarters.
An office order, dated-
22.07.1992, was issued by the office of the Chief of Administration of the National Coal Development Corporation, laying down the Guidelines regulating the duty hours, payment of overtime allowance, payment of additional remuneration for work on weekly rest days and other holidays as well as payment of daily allowance for journeys on tour etc. for Staff Car Drivers.
[2][W.P. (S) No. 5493 of 2007] On an earlier dispute referred to it, by the Central Government, the Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad, by its Award passed in Reference Case No. 244 of 2007, had directed that the working hours of Staff Car Drivers in the Pool with effect from 31st July, 1972 shall be from 9 A.M. to 6 P.M. with lunch break for half an hour from 12:30 to 1 P.M. However, consequent upon the promulgation of the Coalmines Nationalization Act, 1972, the National Coal Development Corporation has been re-designated and re-styled as Central Coalfields Ltd., as the subsidiary of the Coal India Ltd., since 1973. Consequent upon such redesignation, a tripartite settlement was entered into by and between the Management of the Respondent No. 1 and the representatives of the Union as well as the authorities of the Labour Department.
4. It is contended by the petitioner-Union that the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 would apply in equal measure to the Drivers, who are employed under the Respondent No. 1 and the provisions of Sections 30, 31 and 33 of the Mines Act as applicable to the workers working in the underground mines and over ground of the various collieries, would also be applicable to the Drivers as their service benefits.
5. The claim of the petitioner union is that as per the provisions of Section 30, 31 and 33, the members of the petitioner's-Union shall not be required to perform work for more than 48 hours in a week and for more than 9 hours in a day and, if any other extra work is taken, then remuneration for such overtime period, has to be paid to the employees as per the provisions of Clause 33 of the Mines Act.
[3][W.P. (S) No. 5493 of 2007]
6. The grievance of the members of the petitioner's-Union is that though the Drivers have been working for more than 10 hours per day but they have been denied overtime wages for the extra hours of work done by them.
7. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, wherein, it is acknowledged that the provisions of the Mines Act, do apply to the members of the petitioner's-Union and they shall be guided by the provisions of Sections 30, 31 and 33 of the Mines Act.
8. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there appears no dispute or controversy, which should arise for consideration in view of the fact that considering the admitted proposition that the provisions of Sections 30, 31 and 33 of the Mines Act would also apply to the members of the petitioner's-Union, they shall be paid their allowances by way of overtime wages for the period, which they had worked as overtime. Learned counsel adds that upon acknowledging the fact that the provisions of the Mines Act would apply to the members of the petitioner's-Union also, the application of the office order dated-05.04.1986 (Annexure-3) in the case of the members of the petitioner's- Union also should apply along with their entitlement to the benefits as declared in the aforesaid office order, which ensures payment of overtime work during weekly holidays and the festival holidays.
9. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the claim of the petitioner's-Union as per the demand submitted by them, for payment of overtime wages, has been disputed with respect to the number of hours, which the drivers claim to have worked. Such controversy appears to have emanated from the method of calculation of overtime work. The contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 is that as per the provisions of Section 30 of the Mines Act, the total period of work on any day cannot exceed nine hours but in computing such period, the interval allowed for rest has to be excluded.
10. Even according to such interpretation of the provisions of Section 30 of the Mines Act, there does not appear any reason for precipitating any controversy, if the provisions of Sections 30, 31 and 33 of the Mines Act are read in consonance together. As indicated in the provisions of Section 33 of the Mines Act, the total number of working hours in a week for which the employees may be required to work should not exceed 48 hours. Such total period of 48 hours may be distributed through out the working days of the weekk according to the arrangements for working hours, which the Management may decide. If the employee is required to work beyond the period of 48 hours in a week, then the period of extra hours, for which he has worked, would immediately entitle him to claim and receive overtime wages at the rate stipulated in Section 33 of the Act.
[4][W.P. (S) No. 5493 of 2007]
11. In the light of the above observations, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities of the Respondents, specifically to the Respondent No. 5 to compute the wages for overtime work obtained from the members of the petitioner's Union, and assess the same in accordance with the provisions of Sections 30 and 33 of the Mines Act and in the light of the observations as explained hereinabove.
12. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the demand of the members of the petitioner's-Union has remained unaddressed by the Respondents, since long, it would be appropriate that the petitioner's-Union should file a fresh claim within 15 days from the date of this order specifying in detail the total number of overtime duty, which its individual members have worked in a period and within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such claim, the Respondent No. 5 shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision for assessing the overtime working hours of each member and the amount of overtime wages to which the individual members of the Union would be entitled, if any, and to pay the same within the period of one month from the date of the final assessment made. In making the assessment, the Respondent No. 5 shall be guided by the directions contained in the office order dated 22.07.1992, issued by the office of the Chief of Administration of the National Coal Development Corporation.
13. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the Respondents.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.) APK