Patna High Court
Employers In Relation To The Management ... vs The Presiding Officer, Central ... on 8 July, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1989(37)BLJR200
Author: S.B. Sinha
Bench: S.B. Sinha
JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against art award dated 14-4-1977 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Reference Case No. 14 of 1975 and as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition whereby and whereunder the respondent No. 1 answered the reference in favour of the workmen and against the management.
2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass and are not much in dispute.
The petitioner-company had six coal mines in Jharia coalfield region namely (1) Digwadih (2) Malkera (3) Bhelatand (4) Sijaa (5) Jamadoba (3 and 4 pits) and (6) Jamadoba (6 and 7 pits). It is alleged that the Behlatand colliery has since merged with Sujua colliery as a result whereof the number of collieries has been reduced to five in the said region.
3. According to the management-petitioner each colliery has an independent Accounts Section which is under the charge of a clerk known as accounts-in-charge. However, the employees of the aforementioned collieries are under the overall control and subordination of an officer called the Divisional Manager (Collieries).
4. The management has also a Finance and Accounts Department situated at Jamshedpur headed by the Director of Finance and Accounts under whose subordination there is a hierarchy of officers at Jamshedpur. There is also Central Accounts Office situated at Jamadoba consisting of a Chief Accounts Officer and Assistants Officers, Accountants and Clerks either in Special Grade, or in Grade I, or in Grade II or in Grade III.
5. Till the year 1959, the Provident Fund Accounts of the workers working in the various collieries were maintained by the Accounts Section at individual collieries but Bonus Accounts and leave with pay and railway fare accounts were being maintained at the Central Office which at the relevant time was situated at Digwadih. However, in the year 1959 a decision was taken by the Management to amalgamate the bonus posting work and provident fund card posting work by introducing bonus-cum-provident fund cards. This new Section came to be known as the Central Bonus and Provident Fund Section.
6. It is asserted that the question of categorisation and scale of pay of colliery workers was a subject matter of dispute before a tribunal commonly known as the Majumdar Tribunal and the said disputes were resolved by an award, commonly known as the Majumdar Award.
By reason of the said award generally three types of clerks were recognised with three different scales of pay. However, in terms of the said award, keeping in view of requirements of nature of work, a higher scale than the aforementioned three different scales of pay was also prescribed. It was observed in the aforementioned award that by reason thereof only minimum scales of pay were being laid down and it was expected that the larger collieries with better resources would pay more, as they can afford to do so.
7. The Labour Appellate Tribunal, in appeal against the aforementioned award, however, revised the scales of pay. The Labour Appellate Tribunal by its award in respect of job involving higher degree of trust and responsibility, fixed a higher scale of pay.
It is a common ground that TISCO being one of the premier industrial concerns in the country had its own scales of pay for different types of workmen.
8. It is further admitted that later on the Central Wage Board for the coal mining industries has also adopted different categorisation of pay for clerks in four grades namely, Special Grade, Grade I, Grade II and Grade III. It is further not in dispute that from time to time there has been further revision in the wages of the aforementioned categories of workmen amongst others, by reason of the National Coal Wage Agreements.
In terms of the Majumdar award aforementioned Bonus and Provident Fund clerks were put in Grade II and leave clerks were put in Grade III. Out of the clerks working in the said collieries 27 clerks were working either in the Bonus Section or in the Central Office or in the Provident Fund Section at the collieries and they were all placed in Grade II, two clerks, however, were given Grade III on their appointment The aforementioned 29 persons and 9 others were transferred to the Central Bonus and Provident Fund Section in the year 1959 on its inception. The said 29 persons raised an Industrial Dispute to the effect that they were entitled to the higher scales of pay in Grade I. The remaining nine persons, however, did not raise any dispute. Eventually, the said industrial dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal by the Central Government for adjudication and by an award it allowed Grade I to all the 29 clerks irrespective of the fact as to whether they were initially appointed in Grade II or Grade III. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, but the said appeal was dismissed. The aforementioned judgment of the Supreme Court is reported in AIR 1973 SC 1401.
9. The workmen in question, who are fifteen in number at all material times admittedly have been working under the Divisional Manager, Jamadoba in the Provident Fund Section. The said workmen raised a demand that they are entitled to a higher scale of pay namely, scales of pay admissible to clerk Grade I and Selection Grade as the jobs performed by them if compared with the job of the staff of the Accounts Office, Jamshedpur, it would be found that the jobs of the petitioner are more responsible and complicated. The aforementioned workmen by a letter dated 14th February, 1974 addressed to the Director of Accounts M/s TISCG Limited requested him to revise the grades of clerks working in the accounts office. The said letter is contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition.
10. Thereafter the TISCO Accounts Branch Employees' Union, Digwadih by a letter dated 8th June, 1974 and as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ petition, raised an industrial dispute with the management. In relation to the aforementioned Industrial Dispute, conciliation proceedings were held and ultimately the Ceneral Government in exercise of its power conferred upon it by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act No. 14 of 1947) referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal of the respondent No. 1 constituted under Section 7-A of the said Act.
SCHEDULE Whether the Management of Jamadoba Colliery of Messrs. Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited, Jamadoba, Post Office Jealgora, District Dhanbad are justified in keeping their following fifteen clerical staff employed in the Office of the Divisional Manager, Collieries, in Clerical Grades I, II or III as indicated against the names while those who are working as clerks with lesser responsibilities and under the guidance of the said 15 clerks are placed in Clerical Grade I, if not to what relief are the said workmen entitled and from what date ?
______________________________________________________ Sr. No. Name Grade ______________________________________________________ 1. Sri Joga Rao Grade I 2. Sri A.S. Ghosh do. 3. Sri P.B. Nair do. 4. Sri S.V. Ramana Rao do. 5. Sri N.M. Mukherjee do. 6. Sri M.G. Achari do. 7. Sri S.K. Sengupta do. 8. Sri N.R. Sengupta do. 9. Sri M.K. Banerjee do. 10. Sri A.K. Banerjee do. 11. Sri B.B. Khan do. 12. Sri N. Banerjee do. 13. Sri G.C. Ghoshal do. 14. Sri A.K. Biswas do. 15. Sri Mahadeo Mahto do.
11. The aforementioned reference was registered by the respondent No. 1 as reference No. 14 of 1975.
Before the respondent No. 1 both the Management and the Union filed their respective written statements and adduced their respective evidences.
12. In their written statement, the concerned workmen inter alia, submitted that the Majumdar award only took into consideration the nature of the duties of the clerks in the Accounts Section of individual cellieries and not in respect of such industries who have a centralised accounts system like the Central Accounts Office of the petitioner company. The workmen further asserted that taking into consideration the complex nature of the job performed by them in the Central Accounts Office, which is different from the general and routine work of Accounts clerk in the Accounts Section of the five collieries belonging to the petitioner. It was further alleged by the workmen that their duties are more varied and are more complicated in nature. They have to check and supervise the work of 29 clerks in the Central Bonus and Provident Fund Sections and besides they have to do other multifarious duties pertaining to centralised complicated accounts besides other multifarious duties as specified in Annexure A to the written statements. They have reiterated the stand that the Supreme Court in the case of the other 29 clerks in the Central and Bonus Provident Fund Sections upgraded their grades to Grade I and indeed had suo-motu given Grade I to other remaining 9 clerks, although no industrial dispute was raised on their behalf.
13. The management in its written statement controverted factual statements made in the reference itself and further denied that the concerned 15 workmen supervised the work of the clerks in the Central Bonus and Provident Fund Sections. It was asserted that out of the 15 concerned workmen some of them merely perform routine checks or sample test checks of the statements prepared and complied by the clerks in the Central Bonus and Provident Fund Sections. It was further asserted on behalf of the management that the principal duties of 8 clerks in Grade I comprised of processing and scrutinising of suppliers' bills post checking of cash expenditure, preparation of monthly statements and summarisation of cash expenses etc. It has also been asserted that when the aforementioned 8 clerks do not perform any work of greater responsibility than the clerks working in the Central Bonus and Provident Fund Section. It was further asserted that the remaining seven clerks merely help the other eight clerks in their job or of filling of correspondences regarding bills or of journalisation of paid bills, or of giving cross references etc.
14. According to the Management the job of the aforementioned seven persons are of lesser responsibility than the jobs of the other eight.
15. Both the parties to the reference submitted their respective rejoinders to the written statements tiled by the other side denying and disputing the correctness of the contents thereof.
16. Before the respondent No. 1, as before me, the petitioner raised three preliminary objections which are as follows:
(a) The cencerned 15 clerks being not workmen in a 'mine', the appropriate Government competent to make the reference was the State Government and not the Central Government.
(b) The TISCO Accounts Branch Employees' Union has no locus standi in the matter and the dispute, if any, could only have been raised by the Trade Unions functioning in the collieries.
(c) The demand of the Union before the Tribunal was wholly different from the demands made out before the management and as such the respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to decide the said dispute between the parties.
17. The first preliminary objections has been dealt with by the respondent No. 1 in paragraphs 17 to 21 of the impugned award as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The respondent No. 1 after taking into consideration the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties came to the conclusion that the concerned workmen are the employees working in the collieries belonging to the petitioner and as such the appropriate Government was the Central Government.
18. The second preliminary objection raised on behalf of the petitioner has been dealt with by the respondent No. 1 in Paragraphs 22 to 24 of the impugned award wherein it came to the conclusion that the TISCO Accounts Branch Union had the locus standi to raise the dispute in respect of the concerned workmen and was the proper Union to raise the said dispute.
19. The third preliminary objection has been dealt with by the respondent No. 1 in Paragraphs Nos. 25 and 26 of the impugned award wherein it carne to the conclusion that there has been no substantial Ghange in the demand raised by the workmen before the management and the dispute referred to it for adjudication In this view of the matter, the tribunal held that it had the necessary jurisdiction to decide the said dispute.
20. Besides deciding the aforementioned preliminary objections, the respondent No. 1 on merits took into consideration the respective cases of the parties and came to the conclusion that the concerned workmen were entitled to either the scale of pay admissible to the clerks belonging to the selection grade or Grade I with effect from 8th June, 1974.
21. In fine, the respondent No. 1 gave the following relief to the concerned workmen:--
My award is that Joga Rao, A.S. Ghosh, P.B. Nair, S.V. Ramana Rao, N.M. Mukherjee, M.G. Achari, S.K. Sengupta and N.R. Sengupta shall be placed in Special Grade with effect from June 8, 1974. My award further is that M.K. Banerjee A.K. Banerjee, B.B. Khan. N. Banerjee and G.C. Ghosal shall be placed in Grade I with effect from June, 8 1974 My award further is that A.K. Biswas and Mahadeo Mahto are not entitled to any relief. In the matter of fitment in the Special Grade or in Grade I, as the case may be, it shall be ensured that none of them gets a lower salary and allowance than what he is getting on the date of the award. If his present basic salary is higher than the minimum of the Special Grade or Grade I, as the case may be, he shall be fixed at an incremental stage which coincides with that basic wage; and if it does not coincide, then at the next higher incremental stage.
22. Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised the following contentions:--
(a) That the concerned workmen on their own showing were working under the Director of Accounts and Finance, Jamshedpur as would be evident from Annexures 3 and 4 to the writ petition and as such they cannot be said to be working in a 'Mine'.
The learned Counsel further submitted that in any event the Industrial dispute being not 'concerning a rains', the Central Government is not the appropriate Government to make the reference in question.
In this connection the learned Counsel has placed strong reliance in the case of Serajuddin and Co. v. The Workmen (Paragraph 5); Assam Railway Trading Co. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal reported in 1970 LIC 488 (Paragraphs 2, 7 and 8); and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. P. Venkata Swamy and Ors. reported in 1976 LIC 1313.
(b) The respondent No. 3 Union had absolutely no locus standi to faise an industrial dispute in relation to the concerned workmen inasmuch as they, being concerned with the clerks of Accounts Branch, had no locus standi to raise a dispute in relation to the workmen working in a mine.
It has further been submitted that in any event sufficient member of workmen having not raised the dispute, the same was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel in this connection has referred to (State of Punjab v. The Gondhara Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. and Ors.).
(c) The respondent No. 1 had gone beyond the reference as he directed the grant of scale of pay to some workmen admissible to a Selection Grade clerk; and two persons, who had been getting the scale of pay admissible to a clerk Grade II, have thus got double promotion.
(d) Although in terms of the reference, the respondent No. 1 was enjoined with a duty to compare the job and responsibility of the concerned 15 workmen with the other clerks, he did not make his award on that basis and thus he misdirected himself in law.
23. The learned Counsel has further submitted that the impugned award is vitiated in law because of the following reasons:
(i) He had not compared the duties of the clerks of Selection Grade and Clerk Grade I for the purpose of finding out as to whether the job performed by the concerned 15 workmen are more responsible than others.
(ii) It has not been found in the award as to whether the workmen concerned supervised the work of the other employees or for that matter, who supervised the work. The learned Counsel submitted that the mere checking or auditing is not the job of supervision.
In this connection, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the duty chart (Ext-M/3) as contained in Annexure 1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 for the purpose of showing that no supervisory duty had been allotted to any of the concerned 15 workmen.
(iii) Categorisation of an employee is not permissible in a particular reference as the same has got to be done after taking into consideration the case of all the workmen engaged in the entire industry.
(iv) The award, having been made from the date of demand and thus giving a retrospective operation thereto is vitiated in law, as it caused a heavy financial burden upon the company.
In this connection the learned Counsel has referred to (Lipton Ltd. and Anr. v. Their Employees).
24. Mr. B.C. Ghosh, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 in reply submitted as follows:--
(a) The workmen are concerned with the incidental operations of their mines and their offices being situated within the pricincts of a mine; the Central Government was the appropriate Government to make the reference.
The learned Counsel has, in this connection, has also relied upon the case of Serajuddin and Co. v. The Workmen .
(b) Dispute referred to by the Union sponsoring a Class or Section of employees is permissible and no objection can be taken thereto. It was further submitted that the question regarding number of workmen, who have raised the dispute becomes wholly meaningless when the dispute itself has been sponsored and raised by a Union. In this connection, the learned Counsel has referred to the case of Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Buckingham and Camatic Mills Staff Union and Anr. 1959 Vol. 2 LLJ 338 and Workmen of Dharampal Premchand (Saugandhi) v. Dharampal Premchand (Saugandhi) .
(c) There is no material difference in the demand as also the reference inasmuch as in substance the case of the concerned workmen is that they ore entitled to higher scales of pay in view of the nuture of their duties as also in view of the responsibilities attached to their offices. Different persons doing similar duties in the Central Accounts Office have been given Grade I scale of pay admissible to Grade I clerk and as such there is no reason, the learned Counsel submitted, as to why the concerned workmen, who have been carrying out duties of higher responsibility should be discriminated against.
(d) The respondent No. 2 has given a detailed award after taking into consideration all the evidence on records and the findings arrived at by the said respondent being findings of fact; the same is binding upon this Court and as such there should be no interference with the award.
(e) There may be some infirmities in the award here and there as pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, but the infirmities pointed out are not such so as to warrant an interference of this Court therewith in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
25. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, in my opinion, the following questions arise for consideration in this writ petition.
(a) Whether the Central Government is the appropriate Government to make the reference in question in respect of the Industrial dispute raised by the workmen?
(b) Whether the respondent No. 3 Union had any locus standi to raise the dispute?
(c) Whether the demand raised by the respondent No. 3 Union and the reference are inconsistent with each other?
(d) Whether the award is vitiated in law and thus is liable to be questioned?
(e) Whether the retrospective operation of the award is valid in law?
26. Re: question No. A:-The first question raised by Sri Chatterjee is an important one. He submits that the 'dispute' raised by the concerned workmen is not such an industrial dispute in respect whereof the appropriate Government would be the Central Government.
27. According to Mr Chatterjee the dispute raised is a service/cadre dispute and it is not a dispute 'concerning a mine'. He submits that the essence of a dispute does not depend upon the question as to whether the workmen concerned are doing work connected with a mine or not.
He further submits that the work done by the disputant may be connected with 'a mine' but the dispute raised by him may not be 'concerning a mine'.
He also submits that the respondent No. 1 has in fact found that the work of the concerned workman 'concerns a mine' but it has not been found by it that the dispute raised by them 'concerns a mine'.
28. Mr. Chatterjee, on the basis of the admitted facts of this case, further submits that the concerned workmen belong to the Jamshedpur Establishment of the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and are under the administrative control of the Director of Finance and Accounts; who is also their appointing authority and as such the said establishment cannot be said to be a part and parcel of 'a mine'.
29. The concerned workmen, according to Mr. Chatterjee, are admittedly directly linked with the establishment situate at Jamshedpur, which would be evident from their demands as contained in Annexures 3 and 4 to the writ petition and as such they cannot be said to be engaged in a 'mine'.
30. Mr. Ghosh, on the other hand, submits that the tribunal has clearly found that the work of the concerned workmen are in connection with 'a mining operation'.
In this connection, my attention has been drawn to the following findings of the tribunal relating to the job carried out by some workmen:
Checking of Cash Vouchers received from the five collieries. The concerned clerk has to see that the amount mentioned in the vouchers are correctly posted in the cash boo6 and for this purpose they have to look into the paid vouchers and the cash book entries.... He has further deposed that one clerk prepares cost-sheets of the quantity of coal raised by five collieries, the expenditure incurred in the raising and the cost of production of coal per tonne.
31. My attention has further been drawn to the fact that some of the concerned workmen scrutinise the supplies with reference to the documents as to whether the goods were indented and actually received.
32. According to Mr. Ghosh, these jobs certainly are incidental to or connected with 'a mining operation'.
He further submits that the concerned workmen, who are in the Provident Fund and Bonus Sections sit in the administrative buildings which section is under the control of Divisional Manager (Collieries).
He has also submitted on the basis of the findings of the Tribunal that the documents and statements prepared by that Section come to the Central Accounts Office for 10% sample checking and for the purpose of verification as to whether bonus has been properly calculated and billed.
33. It further appears from the impugned award that another clerk in the Central Accounts office looks to the Provident Fund Statements sent by the Bonus and Provident Fund Sections and the job of this clerk was to ensure that proper deductions had been made from the wages of the colliery workers, proper entries had been made in the Provident Fund Register and proper reports were submitted to the Provident Fund Commissioner. The same is in the nature of work of one of the concerned workmen in relation to the gratuity matters.
34. Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act so far as it relates to 'Mine' reads as follows:
Appropriate Government means....
(i) in relation to any other industrial dispute concerning...a mine...the Central Government.
35. The sine qua non for invoking the jurisdiction of the Central Government in the matter of making a reference in terms of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, must be an industrial dispute concerning a mine.
36. The word 'mine' is not defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. It has, however, been defined in Section 2(j) of the Mines Act, 1952, which reads thus:--
Mine" means any excavation where any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining minerals has been or is being carried on and includes--
(i) all borings, bore, holes, oil wells and annessory, crude conditioning plants, including the pipe conveying minerals oil within the oilfields;
(ii) all shafts, in or adjacent to and belonging to a mine, whether in the course of being sunk or not;
(iii) all levels and inclined planes in the course of being drive;
(iv) all open cast workings;
(v) all conveyours or aerial repeways provided for the bringing into or removal from a mine of minerals or other articles or for the removal of refuse therefrom;
(vi) all adits, levels, plances, machinery, works, railways, tramways and sidings in or adjacent to and belonging to a mine;
(vii) all protective works being carried out in or adjacent to a mine;
(viii) all workshops and stores situated within the precincts of mine and under the same management and used primarily for the purposes connected with that mine or a number of mines under the same management;
(ix) all power stations, transformer sub-stations, convertor stations, rectifier stations and accumulator storage stations for supplying electricity solely or mainly for the purpose of working the mine or a number of mines under the same management;
(x) any premises for the time being used for depositings and or other material for use in a mine or for depositing refuse from a mine or in which any operations in connection with such sand, refuse or other material is being carrid on, being premises exclusively occupied by the owner of the mine;
(xi) any premises in or adjacent to and belonging to a mine on which any process ancillary to the getting, dressing or preparation for sale of minerals or of coke is being carried on;
37. In Serajuddin and Co. v. The Workmen it has been held as follows:--
On the other hand, if we look at the definition in Section 2(a)(i), it would be noticed that where it was intended to refer to an industry as such, the definition uses the word industry as for instance, it refers to as industrial dispute concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government, whereas in referring to the dispute in regard to a mine the definition does not refer to an industrial dispute concerning a mining industry but it merely says an industrial dispute concerning a mine. In the context, a mine is referred to just as a banking or an insurance company is referred to or an oil-held or a major port is referred. Therefore, in construing the words "an industrial dispute" in relation to a mine, we must first determine what a mine means and this must be done without reference to the broad definition of industry prescribed by Section 2(j).
In the absence of any definition of the word 'mine in the Act' we may take into account the dictionary meaning as excavation in earth for metal, coal, salt, etc. The Mines Act (35 of 1952) also contains a definition of 'mine' in Section 2(j). The said definition shows inter alia,, that a 'mine' means any excavation where any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining minerals has been or is being carried on. It is significant that the definition of mine under Section 2(j) excludes an office of a mine which is separately defined by Section 2(k) as meaning as office at the surface of the mine concerned so that there is no doubt that the office of the mine, though, it may be situated at the surface of the mine itself, is not within the definition of mine. This position is further clarified when we consider the definition of the person employed in a mine which is presecribed by Section 2(h). A person is said to be employed in a mine who works under appointment by or with the knowledge of the manager, whether for wages or not, in any mining operation, or in cleaning or oiling any part of any machinery used in or about the mine, of in any other kind of work whatsoever incidental to, or connected with, mining operations.
38. In the said decision it has further been held as follows:--
It is in the light of the dictionary meaning of the word 'mine' or in the light of the definition of the word 'mine' contained in the Mines Act that we have to decide what an industrial dispute concerning a mine means under Section 2(a)(i). Judged in that way, there can be no difficulty in holding that an industrial dispute between the employees engaged in the Head Office at Calcutta and the employer is not an industrial dispute concerning a mine.
39. Mr. Ghosh, however, has strongly relied upon the following observations in the aforementioned decision:--
It may be that some of the work done in the office of the mine situated at the surface of the mine may be incidental to or connected with the mining operations, as for example, keeping muster roll of workmen or payment register maintained by them.
40. In Assam Railway Trading Co. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal 1970 LIC 488 a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court held that where the office of the mine is situate not on the surface of the mine but is situate in the head-office and the nature of the work done by the employees of that office is just that of post office in relation to the despatch from the mines and concerned with the sale of the resultant product of the mine and the office is dealing with the administrative matters in relation to the mine; such works cannot be said to be concerned with any mining operation.
41. In Khas Jeenagora Coal Co v. Salim M. Merchant and Anr. 1965 Vol. 2 LLJ page 302 a Division Bench of this Court held as' follows:--
The fact that at the bungalow a skeleton staff was maintained for maintaining certain accounts of the mine would not amount to carrying on any process ancillary to the getting of minerals. Hence, the industrial dispute in the instant case did not concern a mine and, therefore, the reference of such dispute by the Central Government was not competent.
42. In Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd v. Venkata Swamy and Ors. 1976 LIC 1313 it has been held that the gardert-Mazdoor and Malis working in the gardens attached to the bungalows occupied by any officer of a Mining industry cannot be said to be persons employed in a mine. Their employment cannot be held to be an employment in a portion of a mine or in relation to a 'mine' within the meaning of the Mines Act,
43. The decision of this Court in Khas Jeenagora Coal Company's case (supra) and Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) are not directly on the point in the instant case.
44. In the instant case, it is admitted that the concerned employees are exclusively meant for the work of the five collieries and they have their office in Jamadoba colliery.
45. The respondent No. 1, inter alia, based his decision that the concerned workmen are employees of the mine, inter alia, on the following grounds:--
(a) Service Rules of the colliery apply to the concerned workmen;,
(b) National Coal Wage Agreement governs the scale of pay of the concerned workmen.
(c) The leaves and holidays of the concerned workmen are regulated by the Mines Act and the Mines Rules.
(d) The concerned workmen get their salaries from Jamadoba colliery.
(e) The concerned workmen get free house, free water supply, free medical facilities and free coal, which are given to the workmen working in the colliery.
(f) The concerned workmen get railway fare and T.A, from Jamadoba Colliery on the same terms and conditions,
(g) There cannot be any distinction between the Central Bonus and Provident Fund Section and Central Accounts Office when the entire work done by these two is in respect of the collieries only.
(h) The very fact that the concerned workmen took up their grievances with the Director will not mean that they are not workmen in colliery.
(i) The administrative building of the DM. houses, D.M.'s Administrative Office. The Central Accounts Office and the Central Bonus and Provident Fund Section.
46. The Respondent No. 1 in his impugned award further relied upon Section 2(h) of the Mines Act and Section 2(2) thereof for coming to the conclusion that the jobs of the 'workmen' are 'incidental to' or 'connected with' a mining operations.
47. The questions which, therefore, arise for consideration are:--
(a) Whether the dispute raised by the concerned workmen are incidental to or connected with the mining operations?
(b) Whether only because the workmen are treated similarly with the workmen employed in a mine and their service conditions are also governed by the Standing Orders of the Colliery, they can be said to be the employees engaged in connection with a 'mining operation'?
48. From the schedule of duties as contained in Annexure 1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 (Ext. M/3), in my opinion, none of the workmen can be said to be doing any job whatsoever which is directly connected with 'mining operations'.
49. It is pertinent to note that none of the workmen has any direct contribution to make in respect of a job necessary to be carried out which is 'connected with" or 'incidental to' the mining operations in a mine. In my opinion, the word 'mine' is significant. The Mines Act postulates that a person can be said to be employed in a mine if he is appointed by or with the knowledge of the Manager of the mine.
Admittedly, the concerned workmen look after the Sonus and Provident Fund Section of the five collieries belonging to M/s. Tat a Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. They maintain and/or scrutinise the records of Provident Fund, Bonus and Gratuity and some of them only make sample checking of bills and verify supplies made to the collieries.
50. It is, therefore, evident that none of the concerned workmen arc directly concerned with a matter 'connected with' or 'incidental to' mining operation in relation to 'a mine'.
51. A "manager" in terms of Section 17 of the Mines Act is incharge of a mine and the workmen, who are employed in a mine, therefore, must be working under the control or supervision of the Manager. The Manager is the only person to supervise or control the mining operation or any matter 'incidental to' or 'connected with' the mine. The manager of a particular colliery, therefore, will have no jurisdiction to control the work of a centralised office, which looks after a particular job in relation to the five coal mines.
Further, only because the office of Bonus and Provident Fund Account Section is situated on the surface of the Jarnadoba (3 and 4 pits) does not necessarily mean that the same is an office of a 'mine'.
52. As has been pointed out in Serajuddin's case that the very fact that office of 'a mine' has been separately defined in the Mines Act goes to show that 'mine' does not include the office of 'a mine'.
53. In the instant case, it is admitted that the workmen concerned categorically stated in their representations dated 14th February, 1974 that they are working under the control of Director and Finance Accounts (Annexure 3).
54. From a perusal of the aforementioned Annexure 3 to the writ petition it further appears that the concerned workmen categorically stated as follows:
The jobs performed by the staff of Accounts Office may be compared with the job of the staff of Accounts Office at Jamshedpur under you and cannot be compared with the colliery clerks.
55. Similarly, the respondent No. 3 Union also in its letter dated 8th June, 1974 (Annexure 4) addressed to the Director of Finance and Accounts, M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Jamshedpur stated as follows:--
Since our members are directly linked with your department, Colliery Authorities, over looks, ignore and by-pass our grievance.
56. There cannot, therefore, be any doubt whatsoever that the concerned workmen had all along been taking the stand that they were under the control of the Director of Finance and Accounts, Jamshedpur and they were not the colliery staff. It is also not disputed by the concerned workmen that they were appointed by the Director of the Finance and Accounts and not by a Manager of a mine.
57. To me, it appears that the respondent No. 1 has misdirected himself in law in holding the jobs of the concerned workmen are connected with mining operation only because the concerned workmen have been getting some facilities as the workmen employed in a mine and they a re being governed by the colliery service rules as also they come within the purview of the National Coal Wage Agreements.
58. It is now well-known that a distinction has to be made between a 'mine' and a 'mining industry'.
The persons, who are working in a mining industry would be governed by the terms and conditions applicable to the employees of the industry including the conditions of service appertaining thereto.
Reference in this connection may be made to Ballarpur Collieries Co. v. State Industrial Court, Nagpur and Ors. , wherein it has been held after distinguishing the Serajuddin's case (supra) that when a notification uses the word 'mining industry', the same includes a head office also which must be treated as an integral part of the 'mining industry' as the same deals with the subsequent steps taken to dispose of the coal raised from the collieries. It is, therefore, clear that 'a mine' cannot be equated with 'a mining industry'.
59. Further, only because certain benefits which are normally given to the workmen in a mine are also being given to the concerned workmen; the same does not necessarily mean that their jobs would be 'incidental to' or 'connected with' the mine operations.
60. True it is that in Serajuddin's case (supra) the Supreme Court has observed that it may be that some of the work done in the office of the mine situated at the surface of the mine may be 'incidental to' or 'connected with' mining operation, as for example, keeping muster roll of workmen or payment register maintained for them.
61. However, these observations of the Supreme Court, in my opinion, are of no help to the respondent No. 3.
63. The aforementioned observation of the Supreme Court has to be read keeping in view the other parts of the judgment, and the 'ratio' must deciphered on the basis thereof.
62. The 'ratio' of the decision of the Supreme Court in Serajuddin's case, to me, appears to be that an office of a mine is not a mine unless the work performed therein, if the same is situated on the surface of a mine concerns the actual mining operations carried out therein directly and not' remotely.
There cannot be any doubt that in such a situation the job performed in the office of a mine would be proximately, immediately or directly connected with the mining operations.
64. In the instant case, as stated hereinbefore, the situation is entirely different. The jobs of the concerned workmen neither relate directly to a mining operation nor in fact concern a particular mine It is one of the offices where the centralised accounting relating to Bonus, Provident Fund etc. of five different coal mines of the entire region, is carried out, In this connection the word 'concerns' also plays an important role.
65. In Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition the word 'concern' has been defined as to mean; to pertain; 'to relate or belonging to'; 'be of interest or importance to'; 'have connection with'; 'to have reference to'; 'to involve'; 'affect the interest of.
65. The word 'concerning' according to the Webster 3rd New International Dictionary means 'relate to'; 'regarding'; 'respecting'; 'about an affair with the concern one'.
In this connection reference may also be made to Boscawen v. Wyndham 1921 Vol. 1 Chancery Division 257 at page 267, wherein it has been held that the word 'concerning' is synonimous with the word 'affecting'. In my opinion this meaning in the context of the present case is relevent and ought to be applied.
67. Although, the job of the concerned workmen, may have some concern with the mining industry of the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.; but the industrial dispute raised by them, in my opinion, does not concerns 'a mine'.
68. Although, the word 'concerning" is a term of wide amplitude, but the same must be construed in a reasonable manner. So construed and avoiding the absurd consequences which may arise by giving a wide meaning and particularly in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Serajuddin's case it must be held that the words 'industrial dispute concerning a mine' must be construed in such a manner so as to refer to such industrial disputes which have got a proximate, intimate and real connection with the mining operation and not a connection which is far-fetched, remote and hypothetical.
69. If a wide interpretation of the word 'concerning' is placed, it w 11 lead to several absurd consequences; in such a situation anything an d everything which is even remotely connected with the affair of a mine; any mining industry as a whole will have to be brought within the purview of the Central Government, which obviously could not have been the intention of the Parliament.
In this connection the different phraseologies used in Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be taken note of. Whereas the first part of the said provision refers to the industries; the second part refers to a mine and oil fields etc. In other words, the industrial dispute raised by the concerned workmen must be such so as to affect a mine or mining operations Garried therein.
70. The Supreme Court in Serajuddin's case has also placed a narrow meaning of the words 'industrial dispute concerning a mine'.
71. The purported industrial dispute raised by the respondent No. 3, in my opinion, does not come within the purview of the words 'concerning a mine' and as such, the appropriate Government for referring such a dispute would be the State Government and not the Central Government.
72. In view of my findings aforementioned it is not necessary to express my views on the other questions involved in this case.
73. Before parting with the case, it may be mentioned that all the underlinings in this judgment are mine.
74. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned award as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition is hereby quashed,
75. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will, however, be no order as to costs.