Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 726 (JHR)

Tata Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. v. State Of Bihar

2002-07-09

HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, M.Y.EQBAL

body2002
ORDER 1. This appeal, under clause 10 of the Latest Patent, is directed against the judgment dated 10th August, 1998, passed in C.W.J.C. No, 1407 of 1996 (R) whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the award of the Labour Court has been dismissed. 2. The undisputed facts are that the concerned workman was employed in TISCO Adityapur Complex, Gamharia where there was registered Trade Union, namely, TISCO Mazdoor Union. The concerned workman was the General Secretary of that union. In 1987, the appellant issued a circular on the basis of an agreement that ex-apprentice who used to be employed in NP-5 grade will be placed in NP-6 grade with effect from 1.7.1986. In accordance with the aforesaid agreement, followed by the circular, about 100 workman Including the concerned workman, Shri S.N. Singh, who were in NP-5 grade, were placed in the higher grade of NP-6. However, the management by an order dated 16.6.1988, reverted the concerned workman on the ground that the circular was not applicable to him. It was alleged by the concerned workman that he was victimized purely for his union activities. A dispute was raised at the instance of the Trade Union and it was ultimately referred by the Government to the Labour Court for adjudication. The terms of reference reads as under : "Whether to revert Shri S.N. Singh, Ticket No. 290089, operator Grade-3 Growth Shop Workman of M/s. Tisco Adityapur Complex, Gamharia (Singhbhum) by the management in lower pay scale of Rs. 655-34-1063 (NP-5) from 1.6.1988 is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?" 3. Labour Court after considering the pleadings of the parties, formulated several issues including that, whether reversion of Shri S.N. Singh in lower pay scale on NP-5 from NP-6 is justified, and whether the workman was victimized for his Trade Union activities, contravening the provisions of law and violated the principle of natural justice. The Labour Court also framed specific issues as to whether TISCO Mazdoor Union having Shri Sudarshan Nayak as President and Shri S.N. Singh as General Secretary, is properly constituted Trade Union under Trade Union Act. The Labour Court answers all the issues in favour of the workman and passed an award holding that the reversion of the concerned workman in lower scale is illegal and unjustified and the same was accordingly set aside. 4. The Labour Court answers all the issues in favour of the workman and passed an award holding that the reversion of the concerned workman in lower scale is illegal and unjustified and the same was accordingly set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant made two fold submission before the learned single Judge. Firstly, it was contended that the union, of which the concerned workman was representative, was not validly elected union and was not entitled to take up the cause of the workman and, secondly, it was not open to the Labour Court to hold that the reversion of the workman is by way of victimization because no such issue was referred to the Labour Court. 5. The learned single Judge while considering the ratio decided by the Division Bench in the C.W.J.C. No. 2433/92 (R) and C.W.J.C. No. 2434/92 (R) held that the concerned union was entitled to represent the workman of the industry concerned. Learned Single Judge further held that the Labour Court has come to a right decision in holding that the reversion was not justified. 6. Mr. K.B. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge and the award of the Labour Court, mainly on the ground that the concerned union was entitled to represent the workman in the matter of raising industrial dispute. 7. Before answering the point argued by the learned counsel, I would first like to discuss merit of the case of the workman. The Labour Court has recorded the finding on the fact that the workmen completed his training as ex- apprentice, though he was posted in Adityapur Complex of TISCO Limited. The main contention of the appellant before the Labour Court and before learned single Judge was that the circular by which, promotion was given to the workmen is applicable only in respect of the employee working in TISCO. 8. Both the Courts have recorded Incorrect finding that there was no mention in the Circular that it was only applicable to TISCO employees. Learned counsel fairly contended that circular did not speak about non-application to the employees of Adityapur Complex, Gamharia. The workman was accordingly promoted from NP-5 to NP-6 on the basis of the said circular. However in 1988, by issuing an order, the workman reverted on NP-5 grade. Learned counsel fairly contended that circular did not speak about non-application to the employees of Adityapur Complex, Gamharia. The workman was accordingly promoted from NP-5 to NP-6 on the basis of the said circular. However in 1988, by issuing an order, the workman reverted on NP-5 grade. The reversion of the workman by issuing a letter raised serious industrial dispute which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. It is well settled that existence 1 (sic). 9. The apprehension of industrial dispute is condition precedent for making a reference. Once a serious industrial dispute is referred to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication, then it becomes secondary whether the dispute was referred at the Instance of valid recognized union. For that reason, the Labour Court has been debarred from examining the validity of the reference. In this connection, reference may be made to decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Industry Union v. State of Rajasthan. 2000 (1) SCC 371 . In the instant case as noticed above, the learned single Judge has rightly held that the controversy with regard to the existence of the union was set at rest by the Division Bench in the aforementioned judgment. 10. We, therefore, do not find any serious infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned single Judge, 11. With the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.