D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Oshiar Prasad has filed this writ application in representative capacity, challenging the Award dated 21.12.1998, passed under Reference Case No. 75 of 1995 (Annexure -10), by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad, whereby and where under a Reference has been answered against the concerned workmen.
(2.) THE dispute which arose on account of the refusal of the Respondent -Management, to concede to the demand of the workmen for their absorption in service under the Respondent -Management, was referred to the Tribunal by the Central Government by its order dated 04.05.1995, for adjudication in the following terms: - "Whether the action of the management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Sudamdih Colliery, District -Dhanbad are justified in not absorbing Ainuel Haq and 15 others (as in the list annexed) as their regular employees? If not, to what reliefs are the said workman entitled - For better appreciation of the issues involved in this case, a brief statement of the background facts would be necessary: - For the purposes of construction of a Washery on Turnkey Basis, the Management floated a Tender on 24.07.1974. The work was finally given by the Management to a Contractor namely, M/s. McNelly, Bharat Engineering Company Ltd., under an Agreement executed on 29.01.1976 by and between the Contractor and the Respondent -Management. The work, required to be executed by the Contractor included preparation of the complete design of the Washery, Supply of materials required for construction of plant, building, installation of machinery and also construction of the structures in the process of erection and construction of Washery. The terms of Contract also included that the contractor was to engage his own workmen, pay them their wages, bonus and other monetary benefits and also to retrench them after completion of the job. Pursuant to the contract, the Contractor, by recruiting its own workmen, commenced the execution of the job entrusted to it. The present group of workmen are admittedly those workmen, who were employed by the Contractor and inducted in its service in the year 1977. The construction of Washery was completed by the contractor in December, 1979. After completion of the Civil construction work, installation of conveyor machineries, both electrical and mechanical, there was no further requirement of any Mazdoors, Helpers, Fitters, Masons and other incidental workers, therefore, the Contractor terminated the services of such workers, after offering them retrenchment compensation, notice pay etc. as per the provisions of Section 25 F and the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, out of the several workmen, who were engaged by the Contractor, and after retrenching a majority of them, the Contractor had retained the services of about 39 workmen, who were employed as skilled workers, for running and maintenance of the Washery. The Respondent - Management undertook the responsibility of retaining the 39 skilled workmen from January, 1980 under their control and supervision and paid their wages. After retaining their services for about 1 year, the Management terminated the services of the 39 employees in January, 1981. Being aggrieved by the order of their termination and claiming that since they were the employees of the Respondent -B.C.C.L., the 39 workmen whose services were terminated, raised a dispute demanding their absorption by way of regularization in service under the Respondent - B.C.C.L. The industrial dispute, thus raised by the 39 workmen, was referred by the Central Government for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 3, vide Reference Case No. 58 of 1981. Though the Management contested the claim of the workmen, the Industrial Tribunal by its Award dated 03.03.1983, directed that the 39 workmen be absorbed by the B.C.C.L. as regular employees with full back wages. In compliance with the directions contained in the Award, the Management of the B.C.C. L. had regularized/absorbed all the 39 workmen. During this time, and prior to the date of the Award of the Industrial Tribunal in respect of the dispute concerning the 39 workmen, some of the earlier retrenched employees, including one Shambhu Singh and four others apprehending termination of their services by the Contractor, filed a Title Suit in the court of the Munsif 02nd, Dhanbad vide Title Suit No. 51 of 1980, for a declaration that they are entitled to continue in service even after taking of charge by the B.C.C.L. from the Contractor. A prayer for permanent injunction restraining the Contractor from retrenching or terminating their services were made for, but the same was not granted by the civil court. It was only at the conclusion of the trial in the Title Suit, that by decreeing the suit in favour of the five workmen/plaintiffs, the learned Munsif by his decree dated 27.05.1983, declared that the plaintiffs were entitled to continue in service under the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Rule of permanent injunction restraining defendants from retrenching or terminating the services of the plaintiffs was also issued against the B.C.C.L. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, passed by the learned Munsif, the Management of B.C.C.L. filed a Title Appeal No. 71 of 1983 before the appellate court. The Appeal was however, dismissed on 16.12.1986 affirming the decree passed by the trial court. , However, the Management of B.C.C.L. succeeded in the Second Appeal preferred by them against the judgments of the appellate court and the trial court before this Court. By order dated -05.03.1993, the judgment and decree under Appeal, was set aside and the suit as filed by the plaintiffs/workmen was also dismissed as not maintainable. Against the judgment in the second appeal, the plaintiffs -workmen approached the Supreme Court by filing S.L.P. (C) No. 4495 of 1994, corresponding to Civil Appeal No. 8403 of 1994. By order dated 14.11.1994, the Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal with a liberty to the appellants to move the appropriate Government for reference. It was in the background of the aforesaid circumstances that the dispute was referred to the Central Government in respect of not only the five workmen/plaintiffs who had filed the Title Suit, but also in respect of similarly situated other workmen including the present petitioners and the dispute so raised, was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication in terms mentioned hereinabove.
(3.) BOTH parties were allowed to adduce their evidences before the Tribunal.;