Allowed

Employers in Relation to the Management of Simlabahal Colliery of Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Their Workmen Being Represented by the Secretary Janta Mazdoor Sangh

Jharkhand HC21 Aug 2019WPC/1294/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash a unreasoned industrial dispute award regarding regularization of workmen. The High Court held that recorded reasons are essential for quasi-judicial decisions and quashed the award, remitting the matter to the industrial tribunal for a reasoned judgment within one year.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award dated 24.03.2014 quashed. Matter remitted to Central Government Industrial Tribunal to pass a final order after hearing both sides within one year.

Employers in Relation to the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(L) No.1294 of 2015

¶2

(In the matter of an Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

¶3

Employers in relation to the Management of Simlabahal Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., a Government of India Undertaking, having its Registered Office at Koyla Bhawan, Saraidhela, Dist.-Dhanbad through Dr. Harendra Kishore, HOD (Legal), BCCL, Saraidhela, Dhanbad

¶4

…….. ……… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Their Workmen being represented by the Secretary, Janta Mazdoor Sangh, Bhalgora Area Branch, Jharia, Dhanbad ………. Respondent

¶7

For the Petitioner : M/s A. K. Mehta and Amit Kr. Sinha, Advs. For the Resp. : None.

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶10

By Court Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent in spite of valid service of notice.

¶11

It appears that Union has raised an Industrial Dispute for regularization of 108 workmen, which has been referred as Ref. No. 123 of 1995.

¶12

Terms of Reference is as follows:

¶13

SCHEDULE

¶14

“Whether the demand of the Union for regularisation by the management of Simla Bahal Colliery under Balgora Area of M/S BCCL of Shri Gopal Saran Singh and 107 other workers(as per list enclosed) is justified ? If so, to what relief the concerned workman are entitled?”

¶15

The Award has been answered in following terms:

¶16

“2. After receipt of the reference parties are noticed, they submitted their claim statements, and rejoinder and documents. The claim of the workman is that they were rendering services to the management and when they claimed regularization, they were refused employment.

¶17

3. On the other hand the management submitted that the workmen were not their employees. Rather they were member of a co-operative society who provided man power to the management on payment. Even there was no agreement between the co-operative society or the management that the workman will be regularised subsequently. In this case the document like I. D card of the workmen and pay slip has been filed. But the workman were unable to produce any appointment letter of the management.

¶18

4. The workmen were simply working as contract labour, and there is no law for regularization of the same as per the present law. As per the case of the state of Karnataka Vrs Uma Devi case of the Apex Court reported in 2009 SC (L&S) VII (1) page 943, regularisation of casual, adhoc and contractual labour has been virtually been banned.

¶19

5. Considering the facts and circumstance and law of the Apex Court, the demand of the Union for regularisation by the management of Simla Bahal Colliery under Balgora Area of M/S BCCL of Shri Gopal Sharma Singh and 107 other workers(as per list enclosed) is not justified. Therefore their regularisation cannot be done. At the same time they should not been thrown away. They can be absorbed as they were in the management previously.”

¶20

Thus, from perusal of the Award, it is evident that the present Award is unreasoned one and as such, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 especially para-47, which is quoted hereinbelow:

¶22

“47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:

¶23

a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

¶24

b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

¶25

c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

¶26

d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

¶27

e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

¶28

f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

¶29

g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

¶30

i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

¶31

j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

¶32

k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

¶33

l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process.

¶34

m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).

¶35

n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".

¶36

o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in

¶37

setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process".”

¶38

Thus from perusal of the impugned award dated 24.03.2014, it is evident that the award is totally unreasoned as evidence laid by the parties has not been discussed and conclusion has not been reasoned.

¶39

It is trite that the reasoned order is sine-qua-non in the rule of law. Any unreasoned order is not acceptable.

¶40

In view of the above fact and judicial pronouncement, impugned award order dated 24.03.2014 is hereby, quashed. The matter is remitted back to the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.1), Dhanbad. The proceeding of the Reference No. 123 of 1995 is restored to its original file. Learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.1), Dhanbad is directed to decide the dispute and pass a final order after hearing both sides within one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of present order.

¶41

It is expected that both the parties will co-operate with the concerned Tribunal.

¶42

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed.

¶43

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶44

Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi The 21^st day of August, 2019 kamlesh/NAFR/

Employers in Relation to the Management of Simlabahal Colliery of Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Their Workmen Being Represented by the Secretary Janta Mazdoor Sangh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Employers in Relation to the Management of Simlabahal Colliery of Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Their Workmen Being Represented by the Secretary Janta Mazdoor Sangh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ahmad Safi Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Management of M/S.Jupiter Iron Vs State of Jharkhand

Project Officer/ AGENT,20/21 Pits Colliery of M S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs Dal Singhar Kohar

Rajesh Kr Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

The Management of Ms R S B Transmissions I Ltd. through Sri Pranotosh Bhattacherjee Vice President Vs Labour

Kameshwar Singh And Ors. Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd.