The High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Bench, dismissed a writ petition challenging an industrial dispute tribunal award denying the petitioner posts as a senior Crane Operator. The court upheld the tribunal's findings that the petitioner lacked required qualifications and experience despite his assertion of work from 1982.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (L) No. 6408 of 2011
Ram Charitra Singh … … Petitioner
Versus
Employers in relation to the Management of Rajpur Open Cast Project of M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Post Jharia, Police Station Jharia, District Dhanbad through its Chief General Manager, Sijua Region No. 5, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, officiating from Sijua Project, Dhanbad. … … Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
--For the Petitioner : Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. A. K. Das, Adv. Mrs. Swati Shalini, Adv.
03/17.08.2019 : Heard counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed against the Award dated 21.06.2011 passed by C.G.I.T. No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference No. 33 of 1993, whereby the reference has been answered against the workman. The terms of reference is as follows:
“In the demand of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh that Shri Ram Charitra Singh, Crane Operator at Ena Colliery of Area No. 8 be placed in Gr. A (Excavation) justified? If no, from what date and if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
Considering the pleading, evidence and arguments of the parties, the finding has been recorded that the concerned workman has failed to prove that he has worked as Dumper Operator for seven years and on the ground of res judicata, reference has been answered negatively.
It appears that the petitioner-workman was employed under the respondent in September, 1977 on the post of Dumper Operator (Excavation) Grade ‘D’. Subsequently, he has been sent for training for Crane Operator vide letter dated 01.09.1981 and he has
completed the training and completion certificate has also been issued by the Senior Executive Engineer.
On the strength of such training, the petitioner has claimed that he has been allowed to work for a Crane Operator w.e.f. September, 1982 and accordingly he has claimed regularisation on the said post. Since the claim of the petitioner-workman has not been considered, accordingly an Industrial Dispute has been raised vide letter dated 09.03.1983. Thereafter a reference was made being Reference No. 32 of 1984. The terms of the reference is as follows:
“Whether the demand of the workmen of Rajapur Open Cast Project of M/s. BCCL, P.O. Jharia, Distt: Dhanbad that Shri Ram Charitar Singh should be designated as Crane Operator and placed in grade ‘A’ (excavation) with effect from 1st September, 1982 is justified? If not, to what relief is the said workman entitled?”
While considering the evidence of the parties, the Tribunal has taken note regarding the qualification as prescribed for the said post. The job description of Crane Operator Grade-I in NCWA-I is as follows:
“A highly skilled workman with not less than 7 years experience in the operation of handling of heavy duty mobile crane with a capacity of not less than 40 tonnes, he should in addition have general knowledge of the mechanism of the equipment and should undertake minor running repairs.”
Considering the qualification and the assertion of the petitioner that he was working since 01.09.1982 the reference has been answered negatively in the Award dated 14.07.1986.
Being aggrieved the petitioner moved before the Hon’ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench through the Union in CWJC No. 1053 of 1991 (R) challenging the Award dated 14.07.1986 but this case had been dismissed vide order dated 23.08.1991 upholding the Award.
It appears that the same issue has been raised in the reference being Reference No. 32 of 1984 on the ground that by the passage of time, now the petitioner has acquired the qualification
and asserted that he is working in the said post since 1982.
Considering the pleading, evidence and arguments of the parties, the finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioner-workman has failed to produce sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim on the post of Crane Operator. Considering the evidence finding has been recorded that the petitioner has neither worked on the said post nor qualified to hold the post. Additionally the point of res-judicata has also been considered. Resjudicata will not be applicable in the present case as present reference is on a fresh cause of action.
To answer the reference in favour of the concerned workman, the necessary finding to be recorded is that the petitioner fulfils the criteria and was working on the post of Crane Operator as the finding has been recorded that he was neither working on the said post nor fulfils the criteria, and as such, the reference has been rightly been answered.
In view of above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the same is, hereby, dismissed.
Amar/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Industrial Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in refusing to recognize the petitioner as a Crane Operator with seniority from 1982.
Whether the Tribunal erred in recording findings that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications for the post.
Whether the doctrine of res judicata applies to the present reference given the fresh cause of action.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
(No cases cited)Referred
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Charitra Singh
Employers in relation to the Management of Rajpur Open Cast Project of M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited
Rajesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
