Allowed

Employers In Relation To The Management Of Putki Balihari Area Of Ms Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Their Workman Being Represented By The Area Secretary Sampurna B C C L Chalak Samiti

Jharkhand HC14 Aug 2019WPC/263/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed an unreasoned award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal that directed the regularization of a workman, holding that recorded reasons are an essential component of decision-making under the rule of law.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award dated 04.12.2014 was quashed and the matter remitted to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for a fresh decision.

Employers In Relation To The Management Of Putki… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (L) No.263 of 2016

¶3

¶4

Employers in relation to the Management of Putki Balihari Area of M/s BCCL, Kusunda, Dhanbad through Sri Jitendra Malik, Acting General Manager, P.B. Area of BCCL, Dhanbad

¶5

... Petitioner

¶6

Versus Their workman being represented by the Area Secretary, Sampurna, BCCL Chalak Samiti, Dhanbad. … Respondent ---For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar Ram, Advocate

¶7

---Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶8

---12/14.08.2019: Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶9

Present writ petition has been filed against the award dated 04.12.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference No.07 of 2003 whereby, reference has been answered in favour of the workman, directing the management to regularize the workman on the post of Dumper Driver/ Operator in Category-V w.e.f. 06.01.1995.

¶10

It appears that the litigation has started vide Reference No.07 of

¶11

2003, which is as under:

¶12

“Whether the action of the management of P.B. Area of M/s BCCL in not regularizing Sri Rajendra Paswan as Dumper Driver/ Operator is fair and justified? If not to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from what date?”

¶13

The said reference has been answered vide Award dated

¶14

04.12.2014 in favour of the workman by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.1), Dhanbad.

¶15

The said award is quoted hereinbelow:

¶16

AWARD

¶17

“By Order No.L-20012/179/2002-IR(C-1), dated 10/12/2002, the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

¶18

“Whether the action of the management of P.B.Area of M/s BCCL in not regularizing Sri Rajendra Paswan as Dumper Driver/ Operator is fair and justified? If not to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from what date?”

¶19

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 01.01.2003. After receipt of reference, both parties are noticed, The workman

¶20

files their written statement on 17.01.2003, and the management also files their written statement on 18.06.2003, Both side adduce one witness each on their behalf. The workman document’s marked as W-1 to W-4.

¶21

Short point to be decided in this reference is the workman concerned is to be regularized in the post of Dumper Driver/ operator or not.

¶22

From Ext. W-2 it appears that the workman was ordered to work as Dumper operator. As per Ext. W-3. The workman was ordered to under go probation for one year in the post of Driver(T) in category I. From another letter of the management it appears that the Deputy Chief Personal Manager of P.B. Area vide Ext.-4 ordered for regularization of the workman Rajendra Paswan w.e.f. 06.01.1995 in the post of Dumper Driver category V. It is also submitted by the management that the Dy. Personal Manager had no power to pass order Ext.4. But for that, the workman is not responsible nor he be deprived of his claim.

¶23

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the action of the management of P.B. Area of M/s BCCL in not regularizing Sri Rajendra Paswan as Dumper Driver/ Operator is not fair and justified. Therefore, the workman is to be regularized as Dumper Driver category V from 06.01.1995 with immediate effect accordingly prepare seniority list.

¶24

This is my award.”

¶25

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 (2010) 9 SCC 496 especially para-47, which is

¶26

quoted hereinbelow:

¶27

“47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

¶37

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

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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).

¶41

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".

¶42

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

¶43

Thus from perusal of the impugned award dated 04.12.2014, it is evident that the award is totally unreasoned one.

¶44

It is trite that the reasoned order is sine-qua-non in the rule of law. Any unreasoned order is not acceptable. In view of the above fact and judicial pronouncement, impugned award dated 04.12.2014 is, hereby, quashed.

¶45

The matter is remitted back to the concerned Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.1), Dhanbad for taking a fresh decision, after hearing both sides.

¶46

The entire exercise must be completed within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

Pending, I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶50

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶51

Ravi/-

Employers In Relation To The Management Of Putki Balihari Area Of Ms Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Their Workman Being Represented By The Area Secretary Sampurna B C C L Chalak Samiti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Employers In Relation To The Management Of Putki Balihari Area Of Ms Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Their Workman Being Represented By The Area Secretary Sampurna B C C L Chalak Samiti

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

Employees in Relation to the Management of Kathara Colliery of Ms C C L through Sri Bimlendu Kumar Vs Their Workmen Sita Ram Mahto

Hindustan Media Ventures Limited Through Its Authorized Representative Neeraj Shukla Vs Labour

Suka Oraon Vs Ms Central Coalfields Limited through Its General Manager Administration

Umarmodi Ansari Umarmadi Vs Management of Sail, Bokaro Ste

B Venkata Ramana Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Project Officer Sri Pramhans Kumar Vs Sri Deepal Singh

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Employees in Relation to the Management of Kathara Colliery of Ms C C L through Sri Bimlendu Kumar Vs Their Workmen Sita Ram Mahto

Hindustan Media Ventures Limited Through Its Authorized Representative Neeraj Shukla Vs Labour

Suka Oraon Vs Ms Central Coalfields Limited through Its General Manager Administration

Umarmodi Ansari  Umarmadi Vs Management of Sail, Bokaro Ste

B Venkata Ramana Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Project Officer Sri Pramhans Kumar Vs Sri Deepal Singh

Umarmodi Ansari Umarmadi Vs Management of Sail, Bokaro Ste