Jharkhand High Court
Employers In Relation To The Management ... vs The Presiding Officer, Central ... on 16 May, 2006
Equivalent citations: [2006(3)JCR516(JHR)], 2006 LAB IC (NOC) 420 (JHA), 2006 (3) AIR JHAR R 20, (2006) 3 JCR 516 (JHA), (2006) 3 JLJR 486
Author: R.K. Merathia
Bench: R.K. Merathia
JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J.
1. Petitioner-Management has challenged the award dated 5.6.1997 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 96 of 1993 directing the management to take the concerned thirty one workmen into its regular employment and to pay 25 per cent of full back wages with effect from 1.11.1992.
2. The following dispute was referred for adjudication:
Whether the demand of National Coal Workers Congress for employment with full back wages of Shri Jamir Ansari and 30 others is justified? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled
3. The case of the Union (respondent No. 2) is that the concerned workmen worked till the end of 1976 but, all on a sudden, they were stopped from working in the beginning of 1977 on the ground that they were imposter; that thereafter on their representation, the Assistant Personnel Manager by letter dated 20.5.1997 (Ext. W-1) recommended to allow them to resume their duty etc., but as nothing was done, a dispute was raised in November, 1991, that in reply to the notice issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the agent of the colliery admitted about Ext. W-l vide his letter dated 26.2.1992, Ext. W-3.
4. The Management denied and disputed the entire story of the Union saying that it is based on false and concocted documents. The Management asserted that there was no employer-employee relationship and that the concerned workmen were working under the contractor Jamir Ansari.
5. The witnesses examined by the Union said that the workmen were stopped from working in the end of 1976. WW. 2 inter alia stated that a copy of the letter dated 20.5.1977 (Ext. W 1) was received by them in 1977, six months or a year after it was written.
6. The witnesses examined by the Management inter alia, stated that Jamir Ansari was a contractor under whom the concerned workmen might be working Exts. M-l and M-l/1, the measurement books were produced by the management to show that Jamir Ansari, one of the concerned workmen was a contractor and Exts. M-2 and M-2/1, the copies of statutory Form B Registers were produced to show that the names of the workmen did not find place therein.
7. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the Management, submitted that admittedly the workmen were stopped from working in the beginning of 1977 but the dispute was raised in November, 1991 Le. after about 15 years and the Union tried to justify the delay by fabricating Ext. W 1. He submitted that in the written statement, the Union said that Ext. W 1 was received by it a few months earlier to the date of raising the industrial dispute, whereas the truth has come out from the mouth of WW 2, who said, it was received in the year 1977 itself. He further submitted that after the dispute was raised, the Assistant Labour Commissioner wrote a letter annexing a copy of Ext. W 1 and while replying to it, the Agent inadvertently, and in good faith, issued Ext. W 3 without verifying the genuineness of Ext. W 1. He further submitted that, in any event, the letters issued by one or other officer will not bind the Management. He further submitted that at least this is established that the dispute was raised after fifteen years but the Tribunal passed the award on wholly untenable grounds. He submitted that for non-production of the original of Ext. W 1, the Tribunal could not have drawn adverse inference as the Management asserted that Ext. W-l was a forged document. He further submitted that it was for the Union to prove that there was employer-employee relationship in view of the statutory Form B registers produced by the Management but the Union failed to prove the same and thus the award is perverse.
8. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Counsel appearing for the Union supported the award and submitted that the findings are based on the materials on record which requires no interference. Regarding stale-ness of claim, he relied on the statement made in the written statement that Ext. W 1 was received only a few months earlier to the date of raising a dispute. He further relied on Ext. W 3.
9. I am satisfied that the finding of the Tribunal that the workmen worked regularly during 1970-1976 on the job which was of permanent nature, is perverse. The onus was on the Union to prove the same which it failed to discharge. The Management produced the measurement books to show that Jamir Ansari was actually a contractor. The name of the workmen did not find place in the statutory Form B register (Exts. M-2 and M-2/1.). Further when the Management asserted that Ext. W 1, the copy of the alleged letter dated 20.5.1977 was a fabricated document, the Tribunal was absolutely wrong in drawing adverse inference for non-production of the original of the same by the Management.
10. Moreover, the claim was wholly stale. Admittedly the Union alleged that the workmen were stopped from working in the beginning of 1977. But the dispute was raised in November, 1991. There is no satisfactory material to justify such a long delay. The Tribunal justified the delay saying that there is no limitation under the Industrial Disputes Act and that the workmen were agitating their grievances.
11. After considering the cases relied on behalf of the Union on the point of delay i.e. Ajaib Singh and , Sapan Kumar Pandit; and other cases on the point, the Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank v. Neelam, , observed that :
The aim and object of the Industrial Disputes Act may be to impart social justice to the workman but the same by itself would not mean that irrespective of his conduct a workman would automatically be entitled to relief.
In that case, the award of the Labour Court declining relief due to delay of seven years was approved by the Supreme Court holding that such conduct of the employee was a relevant factor for granting relief.
12. It may be noted, that in this case, as per the interim order dated 22.8.2000, the 31 workmen has received 25% of the back wages for the period 1.11.1992 to 5.6.1997.
13. After considering the whole matter, I am satisfied that the award cannot be sustained in law.
14. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned award is set aside. H6wever, there will be no order as to costs.