Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1600 of 2005
PETITIONER:
The Workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd.
RESPONDENT:
The Management of Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/01/2006
BENCH:
Arun Kumar & Dalveer Bhandari
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1601 OF 2005
Employers in relation to the
Management of Bhurkunda Colliery
of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi .... Appellant
Versus
Their Workmen represented by the
General Secretary, Koyla Mazdoor Sabha,
Bhurkunda Bazar, Ranchi ....Respondent
Dalveer Bhandari, J
The main concept of regularization of Indian Industrial
jurisprudence is the subject-matter of adjudication in these
Civil Appeals. We propose to dispose of both these appeals by
this judgment.
Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of these
appeals are recapitulated as under:
In these appeals, the award given by the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal has been upheld by the
learned Single Judge and appeals against the judgment of the
learned Single Judge have been dismissed by the Division
Bench of the Jharkhand High Court.
125 workmen were in the employment of Bhurkunda
Colliery in various capacities since before its take-over by the
Central Coalfields Ltd. (for short ’CCL’). After the take-over by
the ’CCL’, the concerned workmen were employed as
Mazdoors in certain engineering projects and were known as
Civil Engineering Workers. The concerned workmen claimed
that such type of Civil Engineering Workers should be put on
regular basis as casual labour and in course of time they
should be regularized.
The management of ’CCL’ also issued a direction that
such workmen who have completed 240 days of attendance
should be regularized. In fact, a large number of workers
employed in Gidi-A Colliery of ’CCL’ were regularized on the
basis of certain directions of the Headquarter of ’CCL’. Even in
case of Bhurkunda Colliery, 39 workers of the said type were
also regularized.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
The Labour union took up the matter of the concerned
125 Civil Engineering Workers on the ground that the services
of these workers should be regularized. The union raised a
demand that instead of regularizing the services of the
workers, the management retrenched the concerned workmen.
This gave rise to an industrial dispute. On persuasion of the
union, with initial resistance, ultimately, the Home Ministry of
Government referred the dispute to the Tribunal for
adjudication.
"Whether the demand raised by Koyla
Mazdoor Sabha in regard to alleged
discrimination in
employment/regularization of 125 casual
workers of Repair and Maintenance
Section (Civil) of Bhurkunda Colliery of
Central Coalfields Limited is justified? If
so, what relief are these workmen
entitled?"
The Presiding Officer of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal (No.2), Dhanbad in the Award dated 15th
May, 1988 held that the dispute raised by the Labour union
on behalf of the concerned workmen was not stale as the
matter was being pursued by the union due to the stoppage of
work by the concerned workmen. It was admitted by the
union that 21 workmen left the services and consequently the
number was reduced from 125 to 104. The Tribunal held that
the casual workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery also deserve the
same benefit which was given to the workmen of Giddi-A
Colliery and as such their services also deserve to be
regularized.
According to the Tribunal, on scrutiny, out of 104 casual
workmen, only 74 of them in Repairs and Maintenance (Civil)
Section of Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s ’CCL’ could justify their
claim. As such, the management was directed to enlist those
74 workers as casual workmen and be provided with different
jobs in Category-I and they may be regularized after they have
fulfilled the condition of attendance in a year. The Award of
the Tribunal was challenged. The management filed C.W.J.C.
No.1175 of 1989 and labour union filed C.W.J.C. No.1083 of
1991 and Koyla Mazdoor Sabha on behalf of 51 persons, who
were not granted any relief in the award, also filed C.W.J.C.
No.680 of 1999 and all the three writ petitions were heard
together by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single
Judge, who heard these three writ petitions did not interfere
with the Award of the Tribunal. The Division Bench of the
Jharkhand High Court upheld the judgment of the Learned
Single Judge and consequently as directed by the Tribunal,
cases of 74 workmen were required to be considered for
regularization of their services after they have fulfilled the
condition of attendance in a year.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
workmen and the management at length. We see no reason to
interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal
and affirmed by the learned Single Judge and the Division
Bench of the High Court. The process of regularization which
has already been initiated must be completed as expeditiously
as possible or in any event, within two months from today.
In pursuance to the order of the High Court, the
management has deposited some amount towards the wages
with the High Court and the Registrar of the Jharkhand High
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
Court has been disbursing Rs.500/- per month to some of
the workmen. Learned counsel appearing for the management
has also filed a list of workmen who were being paid wages @
Rs.500/- per month as per the order of the High Court out of
the amount deposited in the High Court by the management.
The Registrar of the High Court shall continue to pay Rs.500/-
to these workmen till their respective claims are verified. We
direct the Registrar of the High Court that their claims be
verified as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a
period of two months. In the facts and circumstances of these
cases, we direct that the amount already paid to the workmen
shall not be recovered and the Registrar of the High Court is
directed to ensure that the remaining balance amount after
verification of the claims be refunded to the management.
To avoid any further litigation, we direct the management
to submit a report to this Court regarding regularization of the
workmen within three months.
In the facts and circumstances it becomes imperative to
issue direction regarding regularization. The main object of
enacting Industrial and Labour laws is to ensure peace and
harmony between the employers and the employees in the
larger interest of the society.
The industrial growth leading to economic prosperity
largely depends on happy and healthy relationship between
employers and employees.
As early as in 1967, this Court in the case of Hindustan
Antibiotics Ltd. v. Workmen (AIR 1967 SC 948) observed that
the social and economic upliftment of the labour is absolutely
imperative for securing industrial peace.
Security of tenure is essential for an employee so that he
can give his best to the job. This object can be attained by
regularization of the employees within a reasonable period.
In the case of Calcutta Port Shramik Union v. Calcutta R.T.
Association (AIR 1988 SC 2168), this Court observed that the
object of enacting the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and of
making provision therein to refer disputes to tribunals for
settlement is to bring about industrial peace.
This Court in S.M. Nilajkar and Others v. Telecom Distt.
Manager, Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 27 was of the opinion that
the labour laws being beneficial pieces of legislation are to be
interpreted in favour of beneficiaries. According to the Court,
in case of doubt or where it is possible to take two views of a
provision, the benefit must go to the labour.
This Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (1992) 4
SCC 118 held that so far as the work-charged employees and
casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularize
them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to
their fulfilling the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post
and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is
continued for a fairly long spell \026 say two or three years - a
presumption may arise that there is regular need for his
services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the
authority concerned to examine the feasibility of his
regularization. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt
a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person.
In the matter of regularization, the main concern of the
Court is to see that the rule of law is respected and to ensure
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
that the executive acts fairly and give a fair deal to its
employees consistent with the requirement of Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India. The State being a model
employer should not exploit the employees nor take advantage
of helplessness and misery of either the unemployed person or
the person concerned, as the case may be.
Where a temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued
for long, the Court presumes that there is regular need for his
services on a regular post and accordingly considers
regularization.
It is also our bounded duty to give expression to the
legislative intention for creating a healthy environment leading
to proper understanding and cooperation and in true sense a
partnership between the employers and the employees in
cases of industrial disputes.
The report of the National Commission of Labour
published by Ministry of Labour, Employment and
Rehabilitation in 1969 has dealt with the aspect of industrial
peace and harmony. It will be appropriate to recapitulate
some aspects of that report:
According to the philosophy of the First Five Year Plan,
peace in industry has a great significance as a force for world
peace if we consider the wider implications of the question.
The answer to class-antagonisms and world conflicts will
arrive soon if we succeed in discovering a sound basis for
human relations in industry. Economic progress is also
bound up with industrial peace. Industrial relations are,
therefore, not a matter between employers and employees
alone, but a vital concern of the community which may be
expressed in measures for the protection of its larger interests.
A quest for industrial harmony is indispensable when a
country plans to make economic progress. It may sound
platitudinous but it is nevertheless true that no nation can
hope to survive in the modern technological age, much less
become strong, great and prosperous, unless it is wedded to
industrial development and technological advance. Economic
progress is bound up with industrial harmony for the simple
reason that industrial harmony inevitably leads to more
cooperation between employers and employees, which results
in more productivity and thereby contributes to all-round
prosperity of the country. Healthy industrial relations, on
which industrial harmony is founded, cannot therefore be
regarded as a matter in which only the employers and
employees are concerned; it is of vital significance to the
community as a whole. That is how the concept of industrial
harmony involves the cooperation not only of the employers
and the employees, but also of the community at large. This
cooperation stipulates that employees and employers
recognise that though they are fully justified in safeguarding
their respective rights and interests, they must also bear in
mind the interests of the community. In other words, both
employers and employees should recognise that as citizens
they ought not to forget the interests of the community. If this
be the true scope of the concept of industrial harmony, it
follows that industrial harmony should and ought to
emphasise the importance of raising productivity, because the
resulting accelerated rate of growth will lead to the good of the
community as a whole. That, we consider, is the true
significance of the doctrine of industrial harmony in its three-
dimensional aspect.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
It is plain that in order to create a proper climate for
industrial harmony and to cultivate proper attitudes in the
minds of the employees and the employers alike, it is essential
that employees must be well organized and trade unionism
must become strong. Employers must be progressive and
must recognize whole-heartedly the validity of the doctrine
that they and their employers are partners in the adventure of
the growth of the industrial life of the country. The history of
the trade union movement in the world shows that healthy
and proper attitudes are not easily born and the trade union
movement does not become strong without resistance from the
employers, and such resistance leads to a long and bitter
strife. Quest for industrial harmony has thus been sometimes
stalled or delayed or frustrated by struggles between the
employers and the employees.
The growth of industrial jurisprudence in India,
subsequent to 1950, bears close resemblance to the growth of
Constitutional Law in relation to the fundamental rights
guaranteed to the citizens.
The industrial jurisprudence, likewise, seeks to evolve a
rational synthesis between the conflicting scheme of the
employers and employees. In finding out solutions to
industrial disputes great care is always taken, as it ought to
be, to see that the settlement of industrial disputes does not
go against the interests of the community as a whole. In the
decision of major industrial disputes, three facts are thus
involved. The interests of the employees which have received
constitutional guarantees under the Directive Principles, the
interests of the employers which have received a guarantee
under Article 19 and other Articles of Part III, and the interests
of the community at large which are so important in a Welfare
State. It is on these lines that industrial jurisprudence has
developed during the last few decades in our country.
When we modulate our thinking process and attitude
according to the underlying philosophy of Industrial and
Labour jurisprudence and apply the laws meant for industrial
peace and harmony, then the conclusion becomes irresistible
that the employees who have been working since 1973-74
required to be regularized as expeditiously as possible.
Both employers and employees have their respective
obligations. They must have the appreciation of each others’s
responsibilities, duties and obligations. The Trade Union and
Labour Union should understand and appreciate the fact that
Labour is not a commodity nor is it a mere supply of Labour
force at the management’s disposal. Essentially, Labour is the
real basis that underlines the production of goods and
services. Through the work should the human personality
and its sense of responsibility be able to unfold, management
should appreciate this and always attribute its success to the
trained and effective labour force. It must be understood by
all concerns that both the employees and employers are vital
for any industry and unless there is proper coordination, a
smooth functioning of any industry would be difficult.
On the basis of the aforementioned observations, these
appeals are disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of
these cases, we direct the parties to bear their respective
costs.