- (1.) Both the intra-court appeals have been directed to be listed together for analogous hearing vide order dated 18.09.2019 passed in L.P.A. No.513 of 2018. I.A.No.9889 of 2019. It appears from the record of L.P.A.No.513 of 2018 that the appeal has been filed within time but the appeal being L.P.A.No.636 of 2018 has been filed after delay of 123 days and as such, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condoning the aforesaid delay in filing the appeal being L.P.A.No.636 of 2018 stating therein that the delay has been caused in filing the appeal due to delay in taking decision by the Union and once the Union has taken decision, thereafter as per the instruction of the Union, the certified copy has been obtained and then the memo of appeal has been drafted and thereafter it has been filed, which caused the delay of 123 days. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that if the delay would not be condoned, the appellant would suffer irreparable loss and injury. Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondentManagement has fairly submitted that the appeal being L.P.A.No.513 of 2018 is being decided on merit, therefore, it would be just and proper to decide the L.P.A.No.636 of 2018 also on its merit. This Court after considering the aforesaid submission on behalf of the parties, deem it fit and proper to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay in filing the L.P.A.No.636 of 2018, is hereby condoned. I.A.No.9889 of 2019 is allowed. L.P.A.No.513 of 2018 & L.P.A.No.636 of 2018 Both the intra-court appeals have been filed against the order dated 11.05.2018 passed in W.P.(L) No.2266 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge of this Court has quashed and set aside the award dated 16.03.2006 passed in Reference Case No.114/1989 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad.
(2.) It requires to refer herein that L.P.A.No.636 of 2018 has been filed by one Sri Pramod Soni Intervener to the writ petition representing their Workmen through the President of Hind Mazdoor Kishan Panchayat.
(3.) The brief facts which require to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis reads hereunder as:- The case of the Sponsoring Union before the Tribunal is that Banwari Ram and 102 persons whose names find place in the schedule to the term of reference dated 15.09.1989 were working in permanent nature of job of shale picking and wagon picking from the year 1982 at the railway siding of Rajhara Colliery of M/s Central Coalfield Limited, but their payment of wages was being shown through some intermediaries in order to deprive them the benefit of wages as per National Coal Wage Agreement in short "NCWA". According to them, their work was being supervised by the loading clerk of the management of Rajhara Colliery and further their attendance in each calendar year was for more than 240 days. Since they are continuously working in the job of shale picking, as such, they have approached the Management to regularise them as permanent employee of M/s Central Coalfield Limited and payment of wages as per recommendation of NCWA, but the Management did not pay any heed, so the dispute was raised by making reference to the effect:- "Whether the action of the management of Rajhara Colliery of M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. in denying regularisation to Shri Banbari Ram and 102 others shown in the Annexure employed through a contractor on shale picking and wagon picking jobs is justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled to?" "By Ministry's corrigendum dated 30.05.90 the names shown in the appendix to this reference be added below as Sl. No.103 of the annexure." The case of the Management, on the other hand, is that reference is not maintainable because the Sponsoring Union, namely Hind Mazdoor Kisan Panchayat, is not recognized Union. Further according to them, Shale Picking job is not prohibited category of job, therefore, the Management used to engage contractor for very brief period for Shale Picking as well as for execution of civil nature of job. According to the Management, none of the concerned persons was the employee of the management of Rajhara Colliery. Thereafter, the Tribunal has proceeded to examine the matter by allowing the parties to lead evidence in support of their defence and finally the following award was passed:- "The action of the management of Rajhara colliery of M/S. C.C. Ltd. in denying regularisation of Banwari Ram and 102 others shown in annexure to the reference order dated 15.09.89 is not justified and they are entitled for regularisation and payment of wages as per NCWA and they are entitled for wages of category-I Mazdoor as prescribed in N.C.W.A. The management is directed to re-instate them in employment and thereafter regularize them in Category-I Mazdoor within 30 days from the date of publication of the award, failing which they shall be entitled for wages as prescribed in N.C.W.A. However, they will not be paid any back wages." The Management has challenged the award before this Court by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W.P.(L) No.2266 of 2007 in which one Sri Pramod Soni representing the Management in the capacity of President of Hind Mazdoor Kisan Panchayat, has intervened whose intervention application has been allowed and after hearing him, the order has been passed by quashing and setting aside the award, which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeals. ;