Jharkhand High Court
G.M.,Sijua Area Of M/S Bharat Coking ... vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central ... on 17 July, 2017
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(L) No. 872 of 2011
General Manager, Sijua Area of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
P.O.Sijua, P.S.Jogta, DistrictDhanbad, through Sri Soumen
Chatterjee, son of Late Govindo Chatterjee, General Manager,
residing at G.M. Bunglow of Sijua Area, P.O.Sijua, P.S.Jogta,
DistrictDhanbad ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad, Shram Bhawan,
New Colony, Jagjiwan Nagar, P.O.Jagjiwan Nagar, P.S.Saraidhella,
DistrictDhanbad
2. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, through its Secretary, Jai Prakash
Srivastava, having its office at Refugee Market, Temple Road, P.O.,
P.S. & DistrictDhanbad ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI
Mr. B.K. Prasad, JC to ASGI
Order No. 03 Dated: 17.07.2017
Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing
the letter bearing Reference No. 1/250/2003/B2 dated
30.10.2009(Annexure4 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 1, whereby the petitioner has been directed to implement the settlement award dated 16.07.1981 passed in Reference No. 60 of 1975 in so far as the remaining 6 workmen out of 47 workmen are concerned, who have not yet been provided employment although the terms and conditions mentioned in the settlement award dated 16.07.1981 passed in Reference No. 60 of 1975 does not stand satisfied.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that a dispute relating to the action of the management of Loyabad Colliery, Dhanbad, whereby they stopped the workmen concerned to work, was 2 referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad. The reference was registered as Reference No. 60 of 1975 and was decided by order dated 16.07.1981 in terms of the settlement filed by the parties whereby it was agreed to provide employment to the workmen subject to their medical fitness without any back wages. In compliance of the terms of the Award, documents submitted by the Awardees were considered and during the period 198283, 9 awardees were provided employment and again during the year 199096, 38 awardees were given appointment. The respondent no. 2 filed writ petition being W.P.(L) No. 3686 of 2003 seeking direction for implementation of the Award dated 16.07.1981 which was finally disposed of by directing the respondent No. 1 to look into the matter and decide as to why the Award has not yet been implemented and if there is any difficulty, it would communicate the grounds within 3 months. The respondent No. 1, thereafter, issued notice to the petitioner which was replied on 25.11.2003 by stating that the Union had failed to submit requisite papers and documents relating to Sri Shyamal Kumar Manjhi and 5 others before the Management and as such the Award has become inoperative on account of expiry of a long period. Thereafter, the respondent Union filed another writ petition being W.P. (L) No. 2834 of 2005, wherein the petitioner filed counteraffidavit stating that the management had been punctual for implementation of the award, but the Union did not submit necessary documents within time for which the petitioner cannot be blamed. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.08.2009 directing the respondent No. 1 to take appropriate decision in the matter within a period of two months. Thereafter, the respondent no. 1 again called upon the petitioner to attend for discussing the matter whereupon the representative of the petitioner appeared and filed necessary documents by stating that in terms of the settlement, the Union had to file the documents and particulars of the concerned 3 workman within 45 days of the Settlement to which it failed and as such, the Award was not implemented due to the laches on the part of the Union. However, the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 30.10.2009 directed the petitioner to implement the Award in toto and submit implementation report, failing which suitable action for nonimplementation of the Award under section 29 read with section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would be initiated.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner primarily submits that although sufficient reason and relevant factual details for nonimplementation of the Award with regard to 12 persons were given by the petitioner to the respondent no. 1, the impugned Award dated 30.10.2009 has been passed in a most mechanical manner without considering the reasons explained by the petitioner. The impugned Award being cryptic and unreasoned, is liable to be setaside on that score only.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 submits that the impugned letter dated 30.10.2009 is completely legal and justified and the same has been issued directing the petitioner to implement the Award dated 16.07.1981 as out of 59 workmen of Loyabad Colliery of M/s BCCL, only 47 workmen were given employment in different years i.e., 199496. Moreover, the respondent no. 1 being the competent authority to issue the said letter directing the petitioner to implement the Award, the impugned letter dated 30.10.2009 does not warrant interference by this Court.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the documents placed on record, it appears that the settlement Award dated 16.07.1981 in Reference No. 60 of 1975 was published in the Gazette of India on 08.08.1981, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure1 to the writ petition. On perusal of Clause (iii)(h) of the settlement Award, it appears that 4 there is a condition that the workmen who were to be offered employment of their sons in case of death of the workmen concerned or he has not been found fit for employment or he is crossing the age of 60 years should report to the management with details as required for dealing with their cases for employment as per the said agreement within a period of 45 days of the settlement. It has also been mentioned in Clause (iii)(h) of the settlement Award that if any workman or the son, as the case may be, fails to report within the prescribed period, he shall have no claim for employment. The case of the petitioner is that so far as 6 workmen are concerned, all the details regarding the date of death of their dependants were submitted as late as on 14.01.2004 and, therefore, in view of Clause (iii)(h) of the settlement Award, no claim for employment could have been entertained by the petitioner. The said fact has been completely overlooked by the respondent no. 1, despite the fact that due deliberations were made between the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 and the said factual stand was taken by the petitioner before the respondent no. 1. It is a settled law that any administrative/quasijudicial authority must pass order so as to demonstrate that the relevant issue has been objectively considered.
7. In the case of "Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan" reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasijudicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that 5 justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasijudicial or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decisionmaker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decisionmaking process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasijudicial and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decisionmaking justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasijudicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasijudicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decisionmaking process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubberstamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decisionmaking process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decisionmaking not only makes the judges and decisionmakers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial 6 Candor32.)
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decisionmaking, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain33 EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford34, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process".
8. On perusal of the impugned letter dated 30.10.2009, it appears that the same does not disclose any reason and in a mechanical manner, the petitioner has been directed to implement the Award in toto. Thus, in my considered opinion, the impugned letter dated 30.10.2009 suffers from nonapplication of mind. Consequently, the impugned letter dated 30.10.2009 cannot be sustained in law and thus, the same is quashed and setaside. However, considering the nature of dispute, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation within a period of two months from the date of the order incorporating all relevant factual details regarding its stand before the respondent no. 1, who shall consider the said representation and shall pass reasoned order within a period of three months thereafter.
9. In view of aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish/A.F.R.