Tapen Sen, J. - (1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 4.8.1997 passed by a learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 1362 of 1994 (R). dismissing the Writ Application and upholding the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad dated 21.1.1994 in Reference No. 76/93.
(2.) THE Government of India, Ministry of Labour referred the following dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication : - - "Whether the Management of Angrapathra Colliery in Area No. IV of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited is justified in not regularising the workman detailed in annexure enclosed in the job/posts given against each with corresponding wage rates and other benefits as per N.C.W.A. III & IV ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled." The total number of concerned workman, as per the annexure was 17 and they were stated to have been doing the work of Fitter, Head Mistry and Tyndals. The claim of the workman was that all the concerned workmen were performing their respective duties since 1978 in the Angrapathra Colliery regularly and on permanent nature of jobs. They said that they had become members of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and contributions were regularly being deducted from their wages. They also claimed that they have been engaged in connection with operation of Coal Mining Industry in the under ground mines covered under the Mines Act and they were required to attend break down and emergency duties apart from daily routine jobs. They filed a joint petition on 4.8.1989 and approached the Management requesting that they should be declared as departmental workers but the management did not pay and heed and this ultimately gave rise to a demand and conciliation proceedings which ended in failure giving rise to the reference. The concerned workmen were demanding regularisation of their jobs and treatment as permanent employees of Angrapathra Colliery and also for payment of wages as provided in the National Coal Wage Agreement No. III & IV stated above along with other allowances and consequential benefits.
(3.) BEFORE the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, the Management refuted the claims of the concerned workmen and stated that no workman was even appointed by them and no letter of appointment had also been issued. The stand of the Management was that one Mahendra Yadav, whose name also appears at Sl. No. 2 of the list of the workmen, was awarded some contract job of transporting materials from one place to another and he was paid the amount as per orders and bills submitted by him. He was not a regular contractor but was entrusted with the contract job as and when required. The Management further stated that Shri Yadav had engaged his own workers and he himself used to supervise their work.;