- (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the order dated 17.6.2004 (Annexure -1) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2. Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 225 of 2008 whereby, the Reference has been answered against the workmen. Further prayer has been made tor issuance of a direction to the respondents to give wage protection to the concerned workmen and also to give them arrears thereof as well as future monetary benefits.
(2.) THE Reference made by the Central Government under the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the basis of the dispute raised by the Union representing the workmen was as follows: '' "Whether denial of the Management to protect the wages of S/shn Jagdhari Das, Ramanand Chowhan. Omilal Shaw, Salchand Bhar, Birju Bhar. Usman Ansari and Pawaru Chowhan is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled? As per the written statement filed on behalf to the workmen, the stand taken by them was that the concerned workmen were initially engaged as miner/loader in Group -IVA as piece rated employees. Later, on the demand of the Union on behalf of the workmen, the Management by its office order dated 24.1.1991 confirmed the workmen as Tyndal in the year 1991, as time rated employees under the control of the Management of Nadkhurkee Colliery. The grievance of the workmen was that upon their absorption as time rated employees, no wage protection was given to them, although the workmen were entitled to wage protection. The demand for wage protection was advanced by the workmen on the following two grounds: '' (i) while employed as piece rated employees, they used to earn wages at the rate of Rs. 88.38 per day whereas upon their absorption as time rate employees, their wages was fixed at a lesser rate i.e. Rs. 70.30P per day; (ii) one co -worker namely Surajdeo Dusadh was also absorbed as time rated employee alongwith the concerned workmen by the same office order, but whereas the benefit of pay protection was given to him and he was given higher wages, the concerned workmen were denied similar benefit and the workmen have thus been discriminated.
(3.) THE Management had submitted its written statement denying and disputing the entire claim of the workmen. Stand taken by the Management was that the concerned workmen were employed as piece rated miners/loaders in the underground mines of Nadkhurkhee Colliery which was eventually closed down in 1991 on account of various mining problems. The underground colliery workers were thereafter transferred to various other collieries. However, the concerned workmen whose dispute was referred to in the present Reference Case, refused to comply with the order of their transfer and insisted for their deployment on surface in Block -ll Area of the Colliery. Further case of the Management was that the piece rated workers were entitled to wages as per the decision of the NCWA in different groups with minimum guarantee wages/fall back wages, subject to the condition that they may earn higher amount by doing more work on the job allotted to them. Such piece rated workers were divided in several groups for which several amounts have been fixed as minimum guarantee and fall back wages. Depending upon the nature of job performed by each piece rated worker, he gets the amount computed as per the work allotted. Thus, piece rated worker has no fixed rate of wages and he can claim only the minimum guarantee wages or fall back wages on different groups on which he has been permanently absorbed. Further case of the Management is that for the concerned workmen, upon their absorption as time rated employees, they were regularized as Tyndal Category -IV and the minimum wages fixed for such category was accordingly fixed for them. It was further sought to be clarified that as piece rated employees, the concerned workmen were entitled to get Special Piece Rated Allowance, but since the NCWA -V did not provide for merger of the Special Piece Rated Allowance with minimum wages stipulated for the time rated employees, the concerned workmen could not claim entitlement to Special Piece Rated Allowance after their absorption as time rated employees.;