Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 827 (PAT)

Ramadhar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2000-07-04

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2000
Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioners claimed to be ex-employees of the Tractor Department of the Sugar Factory belonging to M/s. Motilal Padampat Udyog Limited. While so serving, their services were terminated between 19th March, 1978 and 21st March, 1978. In the aforesaid ground, they raised their demands for reference regarding illegal termination, whereupon conciliation proceeding were held first by the Labour Superintendent, Bettiah and thereafter by the Assistant Labour Commissioner. But ultimately no conciliation having taken place, the Govt, of Bihar in exercise of its power under clause (c) of Sub-clause (1) of section 10 of I.D. Act referred the case for adjudication vide Notification No. 109 dated 28th January, 1982, to the following effect : "Whether dismissal of Sarbashri (1) Binay Kumar Verma (2) Haribans Yadav (3) Mahendra Raut, (4) Nand Lai Singh, (5) Narsingh Thakur (6) Baij-nath Thakur (7) Shankar Thakur (8) Ramchandra Thakur (9) Paras Nath Singh (10) Ramadhar Singh (11) Bach-cha Singh and (12) Birendra Prasad Singh by M.P. Udyog Ltd., Majhaulia (W. Champaran) is justified? (2) Whether it would be justified to treat them as worker of Sugar Mills Agricultural Farm inspite of their working in the tractor department of the Sugar Mill?" 2. Before the Learned Presiding Officer (Labour Court, Muzaffarpur), both the parties appeared and filed their respective written statement. Witnesses were examined and documentary evidences led. On hearing the parties, the learned Presiding Officer, vide impugned award dated 16th October, 1990 held the reference as not competent, basic dispute having not referred by the Government, held the dispute raised by the workmen as not an industrial dispute. 3. In the aforesaid background, the petitioners who claimed to be workmen of Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. (Sugar Mill Branch), have preferred the writ petition. 4. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the reference having made by the State of Bihar under section 10 (1) (c) of I.D. Act, the learned Presiding Officer had no jurisdiction to decide the same as not maintainable. The finding of Labour Court stands vitiated having gone beyond the terms of reference, the award is fit to be set aside, for fresh decision on merit. 5. Reliance was placed on one or other paragraphs of the award and the evidences, as referred therein to suggest that the petitioners were the employees/workmen of Sugar Mill of M/s. Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd., but were merely posted in the Tractor Department. 5. Reliance was placed on one or other paragraphs of the award and the evidences, as referred therein to suggest that the petitioners were the employees/workmen of Sugar Mill of M/s. Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd., but were merely posted in the Tractor Department. 6. The Respondents have taken specific plea that the "Employer Company" is a Multi Unit and Multi Product Company. It consults in agriculture; sugar; vanaspati; and steel foundry. All the undertakings/units of the Employer-Company have separate management and accounts. The Sugar Manufacturing Unit and the Agricultural Farms of the "Employer Company" are located in the district of West Champaran having office at Majhaulia known as Sugar Mills Agricultural Branch of the Co. The Sugar Mill at Majhaulia and the farms known as Hari Pakhri Dudha, Khajwa are separate and independent units of the Co. Both the units at Majhaulia have a common General Manager, but the farms having separate identity, controlling authority, work force and finance, the cannot be termed to be of the workmen (petitioners herein). 7. A number of evidences and statement of witnesses were taken into consideration, whereinafter the learned Presiding Officer held that the workers are not in employment of the Sugar mill Units. The Sugar Mill Unit was not their employer. The Sugar Mill Branch and Farm of Agricultural Branch having held to be separate, having different identity, specific finding given was that the workmen (petitioners herein), had a separate employer, they being in Tractor Branch. 8. The State Government though referred the dispute for adjudication, the Employer-Company i.e. Agriculture Branch/Units wherein petitioners were working in the Tractor Deptt., having not made party to the notification, it held that the reference was not competent. 9. The petitioners failed to bring on record any evidence and/or other facts to give a different finding relating to fact, as decided by learned Presiding Officer. A finding of fact having given that the petitioners (workmen/workers) employer being Agriculture Branch Unit, in absence of specific evidence, this court cannot sit in appeal, to give a different finding of such fact. 10. In the circumstances, as no relief, even on the decision on reference, could have been granted in favour of workmen/workers, in absence of Employer-Company, I find no illegality in the impugned award. 11. 10. In the circumstances, as no relief, even on the decision on reference, could have been granted in favour of workmen/workers, in absence of Employer-Company, I find no illegality in the impugned award. 11. In the circumstances, the Employer-Company of workers/workmen being not party before the Labour Court and being not party before this Court, I am not inclined to interfere with the award in question. 12. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order, as to costs.