Dismissed

South Eastern Coal Filed Ltd. v. Presidinf Offi. Cent. Govt. Ind. Cou

Chhattisgarh HC9 Jul 2012WA/242/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by South Eastern Coalfields Limited against a Single Judge order dismissing a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the aged dispute involving nine former workers was not fit for court pursuit and upheld the Tribunal's decision. Costs awarded to Union of India.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000 payable to Union of India (Respondent No.2).

South Eastern Coal Filed Ltd. Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

WIGJiiei |tKF,.01=i3iaB»iRA-TOSE feHHATnsGiitRHi

¶2

WRITAPPEAtNO »f4^/2007

¶3

APPELLANT (PETnTONERAlQ.

¶4

South Eastem CoSlftelds Limitecl, Tht-ougli^^: ^^General Maflager, SECL, I^&^'A^^^{Korb3'(<::hhattis9art1)-} ': ;;T: :

¶5

^^^y''^'' :':i ^,ss^s^^....--•"i^^S^^ AfcEllSUS ^S^^l^'""'i.^ t*f' ..." MRELUANT^

¶6

^-1.^{Presiding^Officer,} ^ecifral (Sovemment, IndustnalTrij6unal, ,.^^;,!^|.»3l^t|ur:(M.P;>;;:;:.i{'l:

¶7

i:(|'||||is|a|ijK|||airi^lrRtiana,^ :'K^|i|||g|Naiopig|gn|||||(|gra,|'i; ,Distri<tj^flaspur|((gM)11il:nl: :''

¶8

%^p

¶9

Unipn oSlndia, | Tlhirough : Tt'ie Secrefar^ MinistryofLabour-;: Governf-nent of India, New Delhi.

¶10

RFrAiPPEAt&tiNKiliB mGHsEQtist^jf^Sii^i-pQ

¶11

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
DB: H^ITBLEMR. ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE 66
HON'BLEMR, G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ.

¶12

Writ Anpeal No. 242 of 2007
Appellant South Eastern Coal&elds
Petitioner Limited
Versus
Non-Appellants Presiding Officer, Central
Respondents Govemment Industrial Tribunal
and others.
\ •s,-

¶13

Present:
Shri PS Koshy, counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Sharmila Singhai, counsel for respondent No.2.
Shri SK Tiwari, counsel for Union oflndia/respondent
No.3.

¶14

Writ Appeal under Section 2 (11 ofthe Chhattisearh Hieh
Court (Appeal to Division Benchl Act,^1006.

¶15

O R ^ E R (Passed on 9th July, 2012)

¶16

The following order of the Court was passed
by Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

¶17

Heard.

¶18

This is an appeal filed by the writ petitioner ofW.P. No. 1043 of 1988 under Section 2 (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 against the order dated 01.01.2006 passed in aforementioned writ petition.

¶19

By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition and declined to grant any relief claimed in the writ petition.

¶20

So the question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the appellant's writ petition?

¶21

^y -J7 ~^?y

¶22

ESiB^^^.~33s^i55iS5s^,

¶23

Facts of the case lie in a narrow coinpass. The appellant is the Govemment of India Company. It is known as South Eastem Coal Pields Ltd. (for short called hereinafter "SECL"). It is engaged in the business of production and sale of coal. It has several coal inines for extracdon of coals and in its working the appellant needs several workers so also expertise both mechanical and manual for extraction of coal from. its mines. ^

¶24

The industrial dispute which had arisen between the appellant and workers in Vfyis case emanated from the Industrial Court reference, whiiph was made to the Tribunal by the State at the instance of fhe parties to adjudicate the dispute referred. It was related to some kind of work which was required to be done by workers in the mine while undertaking a special type of work assigned to thein by the employer (appellant) and depending upon its answer the nature of relief to be granted. It reads as under:

¶25

'Wh.efher accordmg to the tenn of item. No.4 of the settleinent dated. 20.1.1981 between the inanagement of Westem Coalfields Ltd., Korba and the Chhattisgarh Khadan Karkhana Mazdoor Union, Baakiinongra sigaed before the RLC(C), Jabalpur, the inanageiaent bas to provide earth, water etc. at tb.e workspot? If so, to what relief the workinen Gotamakers is entitled to?"

¶26

~ The aforesaid reference was contested by the parties to the reference i.e. the appellant and Union and the same was accordingly answered by the Industrial Tribunal in favour of Union as follows:

¶27

" That according to item No.4 of the settlement dated 21.01.1981 between the raanageinent of Westem CoaUields Liinited and the Chhattisgarh Karkhana Khadan Mazdoor Union, Bankiinongra signed before the Regional labour Commissioner (Central), Jabalpur the nianageinent has provided ,clay (not earth),water etc, at the work spot. Manageinent have -done so on their own uiterpretation which is not

¶28

''...-*<&'"I'i n!s 'St * ,f

¶29

••^^y

¶30

con-ect. Therefore the workman are entitled to fhree; hours overtime as per wages calculates on fhe basis of fhe payinent inade to fhem per 8 working hours a day. This is to be paid to fhein with effect from 20.01.1981 tUl they are provided the clay, water ete on the work site. Management wiU further pay Rs.50/- to each workmen as costs of these precedings."

¶31

The appellant (employerj then felt aggrieved, filed the writ petition, out of which, this appeal arisgs and challenged the award of the Industrial Court. The writ Court found no merit in the writ petitiori pnd dismissed the writ petition giving rise to filing of the app^al by the writ petitioner.

¶32

¶33

At the out set we may take note of the fact that the reference out of which this appeal arises was confined to only nine skilled workers. It relates to the year 1981 or even prior to it. It is stated that out of nine nianual workers no one is now in service and soine have unfortunately died. It is now after 30 years that this dispute is now coming to this Court at the instance of mighty employer (Governinent of India Company) as to whether on the facts as they stood then in the coal mines and looking to the nature of wqrk, which these nine workers were compelled to do, whether any extra wages for the work done by them were payable to them or. not? As observed supra, it was held by the Industrial Court and affinned by the High Court that since these workers had done some extra work in collecting the clay/earth from some distance and hence, on proper interpretation of the terrus of setUement on this issue they were entitled to claira the extra wages for the work done by thein.

¶34

Since the issue is old and only confine to nine workers, out of whom every one are now no longer in service and some have also unfortunately died and lastly the money liability incurred by the appellant in its implementation is hardly in few thousand which i^ much less than what the appellant actually spent in prose6uting this litigation in last 30 years at different stages besides incurring indirect

¶35

"'>.. ^--"k "^^ :»:'r.,<

¶36

expenses and consuming time and energy, we ar< constrained to hold that this was not a fit case, worth pursuing by the Govemment of India undertaking. either in writ petition or in appeal after the award was passed by the Tribunal. In fact such matter should not have travelled to the Courts but should have been sorted out sitting across the table by parties when arose.

¶37

•-/

¶38

Apart from what we have observed, rifere perusal of the award and writ Court's order would go to show fhat the Industrial Court and the Wtit Court did take into account all relevant materials having ^earing over the issue namely previous settlement arrived at-between the parties, actual working of the mines at the relevant time and evidence of workers as to what they actuatLy did for claiming the extra monetary benefit. . ;

¶39

We have thus no hesitation in upholding the award and the order ofthe writ Court, which in our opinion, is legal and equitable.

¶40

l.»

¶41

Learned Counsel for fhe appellant however urged that the interpretation raade by fhe Industrial Court of the terms of settlement should not be taken as precedent for deciding other matters. Suffice it to say, that firstly interpretadon is always made of the words used in a particular document (as in this case - one settlement) and therefore, it is always confined to only one docuinent which has no application to other documents. Second, if the parties use different phraseology, then the interpretation pf one document would not apply to other setUement/document /deed and lastly the issue in the facts of the case was confined to only nine workers and arose out of peculiar fact situation existed in the inines at a particular tirue (1981) and hence it can not have any permanent iinpact on this kind of dispute as and when it arises. In other words, it has its application only in relation to the case ofnine workers' case.and not to all.

¶42

/".^•i"i'\ ^ '•""-.l:'i 1:A'

¶43

-&-

¶44

•»,» y f „-*"' ^;'-

¶45

In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal.fails and is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/ payable to Union (respondent No.2).

¶46

V ^A Sd/Sd/Abhay Manohar Sapre G.Minhajjudin Judge -=Judge

Bini

i'lii'fi

^t^i:;:-^. --•-^^L.-.iinifiettilii^ii^"-

South Eastern Coal Filed Ltd. v. Presidinf Offi. Cent. Govt. Ind. Cou

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

South Eastern Coal Filed Ltd. v. Presidinf Offi. Cent. Govt. Ind. Cou

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Suresh Brothers Vs Commisner of Income Tex

Commissioner of Income Tax Raipur Vs M/S Surta Singh Dhillon and Co.

Laxmi Venturesindia Ltd. Vs Hiroo Pachkod and Ors.

Chhattisgarh Anusuchit Janjati Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Newar Singh Vs State of C.G.

Narayan Singh Uike Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.