Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 378 (CAL)

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Madan Prasad Sinha

2018-05-16

RAJASEKHAR MANTHA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Rajasekhar Mantha, J. 1. Since the two writ petitions challenge the same award dated 27th November, 2014 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol, they were taken up and finally heard together. This judgment shall govern both the writ petitions. 2. By the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973, a large number of collieries in the Country in private hands were brought under Government Control. One such coalfield was called the New Satgram Colliery. It came to be taken over by a Government Company called Eastern Coalfields Limited, the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 7905 of 2015. 3. The other parties claimed to be employees of the Eastern Coalfields Limited. The said persons are 220 in number. The said 220 persons claim to have been wrongfully terminated and or dismissed from the service of the Eastern Coalfields in the year 1974. The said workmen are petitioners in W.P. No. 5204 of 2015. 4. Proceedings have been launched in the High Court at Calcutta and other places by the said employees alleging wrongful termination. The said proceedings reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. By an order dated 1st October 1996 passed in C.A. Nos. 1126, 1127 and 1128 of 1991, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the rival disputes should be adjudicated by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). 5. Pursuant to such order of the Supreme Court, the Central Government by an order dated 21st January 1998 referred an Industrial Dispute to CGIT Asansol, West Bengal. An award dated 27th November, 2014 came to be passed by such Tribunal which is impugned in the writ petitions. The Dispute referred for adjudication was:- “Whether the action of the management of New Satgram Colliery of M/s. ECL in terminating the services of Sh. Madan Prasad Sinha and 219 others (list enclosed) is legal and justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?” The award dated 27th November, 2014 came to be passed by such Tribunal which is impugned in the writ petitions. 6. The 220 employees claimed that they were on the rolls of the said Colliery prior to its nationalisation. They also claimed that after nationalization they continued to be on such rolls of the Eastern Coalfields Ltd (ECL). The said employees claim to have received some wages and other benefits of employment from the (ECL) after the Colliery was Nationalized. 6. The 220 employees claimed that they were on the rolls of the said Colliery prior to its nationalisation. They also claimed that after nationalization they continued to be on such rolls of the Eastern Coalfields Ltd (ECL). The said employees claim to have received some wages and other benefits of employment from the (ECL) after the Colliery was Nationalized. The termination of their services by the ECL according to the workmen amounted to dismissal from service according to the employees. Such dismissal not have been preceded by lawful enquiry, has rendered it illegal. The employees claimed all benefits of employment, if not the employment itself from the year 1974. 7. Per contra the ECL contended that the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986 had come into force with retrospective effect. The said Amendment Act stipulated that even if the employee is a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, he could not claim permanent absorption in the ECL post nationalisation. The reference by the CGIT having been made in the year 1999 (actually January 1998.) The employees in question cannot claim any right of absorption and or reemployment or any benefits from the ECL. 8. The management also contended that a fraud has been perpetrated by the erstwhile management of New Satgram Colliery to show these 220 persons as employees by fabrication and by manufacture and manipulation of documents. 9. The E.C.L. is stated to have investigated complaints of false entries, false books showing the 220 persons as employees. The investigation was stated to have been conducted by two officers of ECL namely S.K. Sanyal and A.K. Dutta. The said two officers are stated to have found that the said 220 persons were not employed with the said Colliery prior to 31st January, 1973 being the date of take over. The said officers also stated to have found the Employment Register including Form-B Register of the erstwhile Colliery does not contain the names of alleged workmen. Many other Registers were also stated to be fictitious and fabricated particularly as regards the actual date of engagement of the each of the employees. It was also stated by the said officers that Form-H Return of the Colliery for the period ending December, 1972 was forged. 10. Such enquiry report or complaint was however not brought before the CGIT in evidence. It was also stated by the said officers that Form-H Return of the Colliery for the period ending December, 1972 was forged. 10. Such enquiry report or complaint was however not brought before the CGIT in evidence. It was also found that the said enquiry reports were not furnished to the 220 employees prior to termination. 11. The CGIT directed the management to produce following documents :- “(i) ‘B’ Form Register, on the date of taking over the New Satgram Colliery. (ii) Payment - Register to the month of January, 1973 to January, 1974. (iii) Productivity Bonus Register showing monthly bonus from January, 1973 to January 1974.” 12. However despite repeated adjournments, the management failed to produce the same. The CGIT drew an adverse inference against the management and rejected its defense. The management also proposed to examine witnesses without naming them. This was declined by the Tribunal and rightly so. By an order dated 8th March, 2007 passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P. No. 11302 (W) of 2007 a challenge to the order of the CGIT refusing production of unnamed witnesses had been negated and held to be in abuse of process, by this Hon’ble Court. 13. The Tribunal found that the management failed to prove its defence. The Tribunal considered the uncontroverted evidence that said 220 persons received some wages and benefits also from the ECL prior to termination dated 06.02.1974. Based on the above the Tribunal held that the dismissal of the 220 employees was contrary to law and hence illegal. 14. As regards the ECL’s contention on the application of Coal |Mines Nationalization Laws (Amendment) Act 1986, the CGIT found that such plea could not be accepted in view of the absence of proceedings under Chapter VA and VB of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. 15. On the question of the reliefs that could be granted to be 220 employees the Tribunal found that the employees did not lead any evidence that they were not gainfully employed since the year February, 1974. Based on the above, the Tribunal had also observed that it cannot be said that the said 220 employees starved themselves without income or employment from 1974 till their respective date of superannuation. The date of initial engagement or age or other particulars of the employees were also not available on record. Based on the above, the Tribunal had also observed that it cannot be said that the said 220 employees starved themselves without income or employment from 1974 till their respective date of superannuation. The date of initial engagement or age or other particulars of the employees were also not available on record. On such findings, the Tribunal in its wisdom has allowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each to the said 220 employees. 16. I have set out in detail the proceedings including the rival contentions as recorded before the Tribunal to ascertain as to whether the decision making process was faulty. The said decision making process is not faulty. The award is also not perverse and hence sustainable in law. The utter failure part of the ECL to produce any evidence in support of their contention is baffling. Hence their contentions could not be accepted by the Tribunal. On the contrary, the proven fact that the said 220 persons received some wages and benefits from the Eastern Coalfields Limited also post 31st January, 1973, must support the Tribunal’s finding that the said 220 persons could have been lawful employees. Termination of employment of such persons warranted compliance with the due process and procedure established by law. The grounds set out by the ECL for challenging the impugned award are equally vague and feeble. WP No. 7905 (W) of 2015 must therefore fail. 17. Let us now consider the propriety of the reliefs allowed to the 220 employees by the Tribunal in the impugned award. The employees did not lead any evidence to show that they were not gainfully employed since 1974, till the date of their notional superannuation. Learned Counsel for the 220 employees had admitted before me that some if not a large number of the said 220 employees may have died. All the employees must have superannuated from service even holding that they were notionally on service. The Tribunal therefore could not have ordered reinstate. The Tribunal was equally in no position to ascertain any back wages or compensation therefore that may be payable to the employees. 18. However in the face of a wrongful termination, the Tribunal in its wisdom ordered Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to each of the said 220 employees. 19. The said award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- is reasonable and conscionable. Hence W.P. No. 5204 (W) of 2015 must also fail. 20. 18. However in the face of a wrongful termination, the Tribunal in its wisdom ordered Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to each of the said 220 employees. 19. The said award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- is reasonable and conscionable. Hence W.P. No. 5204 (W) of 2015 must also fail. 20. The impugned order dated 27.11.2014 passed in Reference No. 16 of 1999 is upheld. 21. It is made clear however, that the Eastern Coalfields Limited shall disburse the amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the said employees only and only upon a full and complete verification of all the identity, existence and other proof as may be necessary in law to pass on the said entitlement to the claimants therefor. 22. With the above observation W.P. No. 7905 (W) of 2015 and W.P. No. 5204 (W) of 2015 are hereby dismissed.