VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE petitioner -Management of Kusunda Area of M/s. B.C.C.L. has challenged the award on the grounds of the reference being stale and the award being perverse.
(2.) THE case of the management in short is that in the year 1973 to 75 there were several ugly incidents like Chasnala disaster and indiscriminate firing etc. the workmen became very panicking and several workmen of different collieries under Kusunda Area left their employment. Some submitted resignation and withdrew their C.M.RF. and others dues whereas others abandoned their employment voluntarily. As the worker who had abandoned their job had not returned for a long time the Management had employed other workers on their place, then after a long period of 12 years i.e. in the year 1989 reference was made by the Central Government and then award has been passed. Hence this writ has been filed challenging the award on the aforesaid grounds. The respondents workmen appeared through Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Dhanbad and contested the writ defending the award as just and proper and reference not stale.
(3.) WHETHER the reference was stale is a question which I wish to consider first. It is settled law that for reference there is no limitation but it must be made within a reasonable time. In this case the reference was made in the year 1989 by the Central Government. According to the petitioner the worker had abandoned resigned the service as back as in the year .1975 and thereafter, though dispute die not exist so the reference after 12 years had become stale. In support of their contention the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision reported in (2000) 2 SCC 455 in the case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors. In that case it has been held that when a dispute became stale, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each. There is no controversy on this point by the other side in the instant case. In the cited case the workmen were dismissed after lawfully and properly conducted disciplinary proceedings, his dismissal was upheld in appeal and the benefits legally due to him were paid. Then after 7 years the workman had raised dispute on the ground that two other employees dismissed in similar situation were reinstated. The Apex Court held vide para 6 that "there appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after a lapse of about seven years of the order dismissing the respondent from service. At the time reference was made no industrial dispute existed or could be even said to have been apprehended." The Apex Court further held vide para 7 that "in the present appeal it is not the case of the respondent that the disciplinary proceedings, which resulted in his dismissal, were in any way illegal or there was even any irregularity. He availed his remedy of appeal under the rules governing his conditions of service. It could not be said that in the circumstances an industrial dispute did arise or was even apprehended after a lapse of about seven years of then dismissal of the respondent. Thus, the Honble Court passed its judgment on the ground that since the respondent of that case had availed all departmental remedies and had not challenged the legality of that proceeding, so the dispute came to an end. Consequently, after seven years obviously there was no dispute or apprehended dispute and, therefore, reference was stale. The facts of this case are different from the facts of the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the instant case as per own showing of the petitioner, the workmen were not departmentatly proceeded or removed from service following certain procedure as has been the fact in the referred case. The petitioner himself says that some workers abandoned their job and some workers had voluntarily resigned and the some accepted their C.M.P.F., gratuity and other dues and, therefore, their services were terminated. This obviously amounts to an admission that even though the workers relinquished their job in the aforesaid manner, their services did not come to an end after a departmental proceeding against them.;