Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 676 (JHR)

Management Of Bokaro Steel Plant v. V. S. Tiwary

2005-09-05

ALTAMAS KABIR, R.K.MERATHIA

body2005
ORDER 1. This appeal at the instance of the Management of the Bokaro Steel Plant is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellants writ application, being W.P. (L) No. 2690 of 2003, with the observation that the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not required to re-appraise the entire evidence and record a finding which was different from that of the Labour Court. Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 2. Before we proceed further, it may be useful to indicate that Rashtriya Congress Shramik Sangh, Bokaro Steel City raised an industrial dispute on behalf of the respondent, Shri Vidya Sagar Tiwary, regarding his status as an employee on daily wages of the Bokaro Steel Sports and Recreation Council and as to whether he was an employee of the Bokaro Steel Plant. The dispute was ultimately referred to the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City by the State of Bihar, Department of Labour, Employment and Training through Notification dated 1st March, 1993. The terms of the reference were as follows : "Whether Shree Vidhya Sagar Tiwary, Daily Wages, Library Assistant, Bokaro Steel Plant, is an employee of the Steel Plant. If yes, the services of Shree Tiwary should be reinstated. If yes, from what date? Inasmuch as, the wordings of the reference appear to be somewhat confusing, the original Hindi version, as recorded by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court in his award, is also set out hereinbelow : D;k Jh fnO;k lkxj frokjh] nSfud osru Hkksxh] iqLrdky; lgk;d cksdkjks LVhy IykaV ds deZdkj gS A ;fn gka] rks D;k Jh frokjh dh lsok fu;fer dh tkuh pkfg, ;fn gka rks fdl frfFk ls A** 3. After considering the cases of the respective parties and also certain judgments passed by the High Court in connection with matters, which are more or less similar, the Labour Court came to the finding that Shri Tiwary was, in fact, an employee of the Bokaro Steel Plant, though he was working under the Liberian, Bokaro Ispat Pustakalaya, Steel Authority of India, Bokaro Steel Plant. It may not be out of place to mention that it has been the case of the appellant that since the said Organization in which the private respondent was working, was an autonomous body, it could not be said that he was an employee, much less a regular employee, of the Bokaro Steel Plant. 4. Apart from the above, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned advocate, appearing for the Management of the Bokaro Steel Plant referred to certain decision of the Honble Supreme Court, mainly the case of Dr. Chanchal Goel (Mrs) v. State of Rajasthan, , wherein while considering the case of appointment of a lady doctor on a temporary basis for a period of six months or till the availability of the candidate selected by PSC, the Honble Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the fact that the appellant had rendered 28 years of service, unless the initial recruitment is regularised, the appellants services could not be regularised, Reliance was also placed on another decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of A. Umarani v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and Ors., reported in AIR 2004 SC 4504 , wherein also the Honble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed that, where a persons initial appointment was not regular, the Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India on mere sympathy, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan submitted that having regard to the stringent note of caution, which has been expressed by the Honble Supreme Court, no amount of continuous service for a long period would be of any avail to the private respondent, in the absence of regular appointment at the initial stage. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan submitted that the learned Single Judge had no right to consider the award in detail and had accordingly chosen not to interfere on the ground that an award could not be challenged in a writ proceeding in a manner where evidence would have to be re-appraised, unless of course there was any element of mala fide or perversity. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan urged that the very basis of the award passed by the Labour Court was erroneous and as a result the award stood vitiated and was liable to set aside alongwith the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 5. On the order hand, Mrs. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan urged that the very basis of the award passed by the Labour Court was erroneous and as a result the award stood vitiated and was liable to set aside alongwith the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 5. On the order hand, Mrs. Pal who appeared for the workman, contended that the Labour Court had not committed any error in holding that not only the private respondent was an employee of Bokaro Steel Plant but that his services were required to be regularised on account of earlier decision of this Court in similar matters. Mrs. Pal took us through the judgment of the learned Single Judge, in the case of the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro, reported in 2002 (2) JLJR 207 , where a more or less similar case was under consideration and where also in the absence of any appointment letter, the learned Judge on the basis of the surrounding circumstances and the manner in which the workman had been treated, came to a finding that the said workman was not only an employee of Bokaro Steel Plant but a regular employee. The private respondent in the said case was also an appointee of the Sports and Recreation Council, which was claimed by the management of the Bokaro Steel Plant to be an autonomous body and not apart of the Steel Plant. The learned Judge however, held otherwise and concluded that the said Sport and Recreation Council was a department of the Bokaro Steel Plant and not an autonomous body, as had been contended. 6. The findings of the learned Single Judge were also assailed in the appeal in the said matter, being L.P.A. No. 341 of 2002, and the same was disposed of by the Division Bench on 1st July, 2002 without interference. While dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench observed in that matter that the Labour Court after construing the evidence adduced by the workman recorded a finding in favour of the workman and the learned Single Judge chose not to interfere, and, on the other hand, held that the relationship of employer and employee existed between the Management of the Bokaro Steel Plant and the concerned workman. On such count, the learned Division Bench chose to dismiss the appeal. On such count, the learned Division Bench chose to dismiss the appeal. The Management of the Bokaro Steel Plant moved the Honble Supreme Court, but the Special Leave Petition filed by the Management was also dismissed on 1st November, 2002. 7. Mrs. Pal submitted that in the circumstances mentioned above, the present appeal did not call for any interference and was liable to be dismissed. In support of her submission, Mrs. Pal firstly referred to and relied on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court, in the case of Bank of India and Anr. v. Degala Suryanarayana, , in which it had been observed that re-appreciation of evidence was not permissible in respect of findings of fact recorded in the departmental enquiry and that finding of fact would not ordinarily be interfered with by the Court, except on the ground of mala fides and perversity. Mrs. Pal also relied on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court, in the case of Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers Union and Anr., , wherein the Supreme Court came to a conclusion on the materials before it that the employees of the Canteen were, in fact, the employees of the Bank and were, therefore, entitled to be treated as such and to receive all benefits derived therefrom. Mrs. Pal submitted that the judgment under appeal did not call for any interference in this appeal. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and we feel that the facts of this case are a little different from the ordinary cases regarding regularization. This case does not involve any back door entry nor does it involve any fraud on the part of the private respondent in obtaining engagement/employment in the Library, which, as has been held in the earlier matter, was being run by the Bokaro Steel Plant. The only question is since there was no regular appointment after following the rules of the recruitment, whether the private respondent could be said to be a regular employee of Bokaro Steel Plant. 9. Here again after considering the evidence available, the Labour Court has come to the finding that the private respondent was, in fact, an employee of the Bokaro Steel Plant and was entitled to be treated as a regular employee. Such finding was also not disturbed by the learned Single Judge. 9. Here again after considering the evidence available, the Labour Court has come to the finding that the private respondent was, in fact, an employee of the Bokaro Steel Plant and was entitled to be treated as a regular employee. Such finding was also not disturbed by the learned Single Judge. There is no denial of the fact that the private respondent had after his initial engagement continued in service in whatever capacity, for a period of 22 years and during this period he was treated in a manner as if he was a regular employee and even transferred from place to place. While, it is true that the private respondent had not been issued any letter of appointment, the manner in which his services were taken by the authorities of the Bokaro Steel Plant does not leave any room for doubt that he was, in fact, treated to be a regular employee. 10. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge or the award as passed by the Labour Court and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.