Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1316 (JHR)

Ramesh Gope v. Central Coalfields Ltd.

2013-12-03

AMITAV K.GUPTA, R.BANUMATHI

body2013
JUDGMENT By Court This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order passed in the writ petition being W.P.(L) No.5522 of 2011 dated 14.2.2012, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner for regularization of the services in pursuance of the award dated 3rd October, 1996, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has been dismissed. 2. The appellants, who are the workmen and discharging their services as contract labour, raised dispute for their regularization through Union which was referred as Reference Case No.58 of 1992 and the award was passed on 3.10.1996 directing the Management to regularize the services of the petitioner. The award dated 3.10.1996 was challenged in a writ petition vide CWJC No. 199 of 1997 and the same was dismissed on 29.4.1999. Challenging the order passed in the said CWJC No. 199 of 1997, L.P.A. No. 214 of 1999 was preferred and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 19.8.1999. The Management preferred Special Leave Petition no.19391 of 1999 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 30.8.2001. Even after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, when the members of the appellant-Union were not regularized, the Union again filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2795 of 2002 and vide order dated 25.9.2008, the said writ petition was disposed of, directing the Management to implement the award with a liberty to the appellant to move an appropriate application/ petition, in case, the award is not implemented or disposed of by the authority within a period of three months (with effect from 25.9.2008). Thereafter, the appellant-Union and the Management entered into a settlement on 4.8.2009. As per the settlement, a sum of Rs.10,000/- as lumpsum was payable to the workman and they were also to be regularized. 3. The grievance of the appellants is that out of 299 workmen, only some of them, namely 117, were regularized and still 182 workmen are not regularized nor given appointment. 4. The appellants preferred a fresh writ petition bearing W.P.(L) No.5522 of 2011 to forthwith appoint the appellants in service along with the back wages, in pursuance of award dated 3rd October, 1996 passed in Reference Case No. 58 of 1992, which has been confirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. The appellants preferred a fresh writ petition bearing W.P.(L) No.5522 of 2011 to forthwith appoint the appellants in service along with the back wages, in pursuance of award dated 3rd October, 1996 passed in Reference Case No. 58 of 1992, which has been confirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants on 14.2.2012 observing that the prayer of the appellants is not entertainable in the writ jurisdiction and also that the petitioners'(appellants herein) seek to execute the award after about 15 years through the writ Court. Challenging the order passed in W.P.(C)No.5522 of 2011, the appellants have filed this Letters Patent Appeal. 5. We have heard Mr.Sujit Narayan Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. On behalf of the respondents, we have heard Mr. Ananda Sen. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that even though the award was confirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Management has not chosen to issue appointment to 182 workmen. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellants have been approaching the Management on various occasions and a settlement had also arrived at on 4.8.2009 and when the workmen were genuinely pursuing their cases with the Management, the learned Single Judge was not right in saying that the award is sought to be executed after 15 years through the writ Court and, therefore prays for allowing of this Letters Patent Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a decision rendered in the case of Jagdish Chand Vs. Labour Commissioner & others, as reported in (1995) 109 PLR, 581. 7. We have heard Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the prayer sought for in the writ petition is only for the execution of the award in Reference Case No.58 of 1992 followed by the settlement between the workmen and the Management and as per Section 11(9) & (10) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the award passed by the Tribunal shall be executed in accordance with the procedure laid down for execution of orders and decree of a civil court under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 10. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 10. Section 11(9) and (10) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under :- “11. Procedure and power of conciliation officers, Boards, Courts and Tribunals.- xxxx xx (9) Every award made, order issued or settlement arrived at by or before Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal shall be executed in accordance with the procedure laid down for execution of orders and decree of a Civil Court under order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). (10) The Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall transmit any award, order or settlement to a Civil Court having jurisdiction and such Civil Court shall execute the award, order or settlement as if it were a decree passed by it.” 11. By careful reading of Section 11 of the said Act, it is seen that every award made, order issued or settlement arrived at by or before Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal shall be executed in accordance with the procedure laid down for execution of orders and decree of a Civil Court under order 21 CPC. In terms of Section 11(10) thereof, the Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall transmit any award, order or settlement to a Civil Court having jurisdiction and such Civil Court shall execute the award, order or settlement as if it were a decree passed by it. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the provisions of Section 11(9) and 11(10) have been amended by inserting the Act 24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.9.2010 and in the present case award was passed on 3rd October, 1996 and subsequently settlement was arrived at 4.8.2009 and, therefore, the Management cannot resort to the amended provisions of Section 11(9) & (10) of the Act. 13. We do not propose to express any view on the retrospective or prospective effect of Section 11(9) and (10) of the Act. Suffice it to note that it is open to the appellants to approach the concerned Tribunal, seeking the relief for execution of the award in accordance with Section 11(9) and 11(10) of the Act. 14. 13. We do not propose to express any view on the retrospective or prospective effect of Section 11(9) and (10) of the Act. Suffice it to note that it is open to the appellants to approach the concerned Tribunal, seeking the relief for execution of the award in accordance with Section 11(9) and 11(10) of the Act. 14. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14.2.2012 in W.P.(L) No5522 of 2011 is set aside and Letters Patent Appeal is partly allowed to the above extent. If any application is filed for execution of the award, we direct the Tribunal to take up the matter at an early date and dispose of the same, in accordance with law.