- (1.) BY Court: This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 5.9.2002 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3433 of 1992 (R) whereby and where under he dismissed the aforesaid writ application .
(2.) IT appears that the workman, Shiv Shankar Prasad, claimed to have been appointed as general mazdoor inNorth Tetulia Colliery on 5.4.1971. However the manger of the said colliery illegally stopped him from doing work w.e.f. 25.4.1973. It further appears that on 1.5.1973 the North Tetulia Colliery was nationalized and merged with Akashkinaree colliery of B.C.C.L. Ltd as per the provisions of Coal Mines Nationalization Act, 1973. Thereafter the workman gave several representations for allowing him to resume duty with full back wages, but in vain. The workman also approached the management through Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh and demanded for his resumption on the duty but the same had also not been entertained. Thereafter the matter was brought to the notice of Conciliation Officer who started Conciliation proceeding, which failed. Then the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of power conferred on it under section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad for adjudication vide order No. L20012(259)/86D. III(A), dated, the December, 1986. "Whether the demand of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh that the management of Akashkinaree Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited should allow resumption of duty by Shri Sheo Shankar Prasad who claimed to have previously worked as a General Mazdoor in North Tetulia Section of the said Colliery is justified ? If so, to what relief is this workman entitled - After the reference, the notices were served upon the parties and in response to the said notice both the parties appeared before the Tribunal and contested the reference by filing separate written statement. It is stated on behalf of the workman that he has been duly appointed on the post of general mazdoor by the competent authority in Tetulia Colliery w.e.f. 5.4.1971 and was working continuously for more than 240 days. However the manager of the said colliery illegally stopped him from doing work w.e.f. 25.4.1973 on the allegation that he was an inductee. It is stated that the workman was not given any opportunity to defend himself before passing of the aforesaid order. It is further stated that before stopping him from doing any work, he had not been given any notice and compensation as provided under section 25(f) of the Industrial Dispute Act, therefore, alleged action of the management in terminating the service of workman is illegal and void abinitio.
(3.) THE management has stated that before the nationalization of the aforesaid Tetulia Colliery, screening committee was constituted for screening the workmen of the said colliery and the said Committee screened the concerned workmen and found that he was an inductee and fraudulently managed to enter into the service of the colliery after take over. Accordingly, he had been stopped from working w.e.f. 25.4.1973. It is further stated that the concerned workman has not filed any appeal, against the order of stopping him from doing work, before the Deputy/Additional Custodian General. It is stated that since the workman is not an employee of the Akashkinaree colliery, therefore, it is not necessary to follow the provisions contained in section 25(f) of the Industrial Dispute Act. It is further stated that section 14 of the Coal Nationalization Act has been amended in the year 1986 and after the said amendment, the protection available under the original section 14 of the Nationalization Act remained no longer available, therefore no relief can be given to the concerned workman. It is further stated that the reference made by the Central Government is illegal because the same is stale.;