Allowed

Bokaro Power Supply Company Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Chief Executive Officer K Harinarayan v. Jharkhand Krantikari Mazdoor Union Through Its General Secretary D C Gosain

Jharkhand HC29 Nov 2022WPC/6187/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed a writ petition quashing an Industrial Tribunal award. The court held that the Tribunal travelled beyond its jurisdiction by mandating the petitioner to match benefits accorded to a different organization (SAIL). Each PSU's board resolution on welfare amenities is independent, and extending a different date/rate based on another organization's circular was imper

What did the court decide?

The Award dated 22.02.2017 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad is hereby set aside.

Bokaro Power Supply Company Pvt. Ltd… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No.6187 of 2017

¶3

Bokaro Power Supply Company (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Chief Executive Officer, K. Harinarayan, Bokaro

¶4

…… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Jharkhand Krantikari Mazdoor Union through its General Secretary D. C. Gosain, Bokaro ….. Respondent

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav Abhishekh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. V. P. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rama Kant Tiwari, Advocate

¶9

20/Dated: 29th November, 2022

¶10

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior counsel for the respondent-Union.

¶11

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the Award dated 22.02.2017 whereby the reference has been answered in favour of the workmen, passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference No.41 of 2012.

¶12

3. It appears that the Union has espoused the cause of the employee of the petitioner-organization. The additional welfare amenities @Rs.1000/- per month has been claimed for the period from 01.10.2009 to 30.09.2011 as has been implemented by the Bokaro Steel Plant, Steel Authority of India Limited for its contract workers. It further appears that the petitionerorganization has implemented the said scheme w.e.f 01.10.2011.

¶13

4. The terms of reference reads as under :-

¶14

“Whether the action of the management of Bokaro Power Supply Co, (P) Ltd., Bokaro in not allowing the payment of Additional Welfare Amenities @ Rs.1000/per month to the Contract workers engaged through contractors w.e.f 1.10.2009 at par with the contract workers working in the premises of Bokaro Steel Plant – SAIL is legal and justified ? What relief the workmen are entitled to ?”

¶15

The petitioner-organization has taken a plea before the Industrial Tribunal that M/s. Bokaro Power Supply Company (P) Limited (BPSCL) is a joint venture of Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) and Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) and it has a separate /establishment ingested/ entity and it cannot be controlled by the Steel Authority of India Limited alone and being a distinct entity it has its own wage structure. Accordingly, vide

¶16

- 2 -

¶17

Circular dated 09.11.2011 it has implemented the scheme w.e.f. 01.10.2011. The Circular dated 09.11.2011 reads as under :-

¶18

“CIRCULAR

¶19

It has been decided in the 68^th Board meeting that the contractors working in Bokaro Power Supply Company (P) Ltd. (excluding Project Expansion ares) shall have to pay an amount of Rs.38.46 per day on actual attendance per month (not exceeding Rs.1000/- per month) to the Contract workers (viz USW, SSW, SW, Supervisors (Non Diploma Holders). Supervisors (Diploma Holders) engaged by them in the job w.e.f 01.10.2011 in the form of Additional Welfare Amenity (AWA) for which compliance has to be ensured. The payment of AWA to contract workers shall be made as per existing procedure of joint certification.

¶20

In case of running contracts as on 01.10.2011 the actual amount paid to the Contract workers by the contractors shall be reimbursed to the contractors along with the statutory levies viz. Service Tax. ESI (Contractor's share @4.75%) through their bills on production of documentary evidence. The procedure for reimbursement of the said additional welfare amenity (AWA) shall be as below.

¶21

A. EXISTING CONTRACTORS :

¶22

1. The contractor shall submit the Bill for reimbursement of AWA alongwith copy of certified muster roll and details of expenditure incurred towards statutory levies to the Engineer I/c.

¶23

2. The Engineer I/c shall examine the claim and then fill up the details in the enclosed format 'A' in duplicate and certify. He shall forward the certified format 'A' alongwith muster roll and claim of the contractor to Personnel/CLC.

¶24

3. Personnel/CLC shall also certify in the column provided on format 'A' and send it alongwith the claim of the contractors to AGM (F&A). the muster roll and a copy of format 'A' alongwith copy of ESI challan shall be retained with Personnel/CLC.

¶25

4. AGM (F&A) shall examine the claim and make the reimbursement to the contractor as per existing procedure.

¶26

B. FUTURE CONTRACTS :

¶27

1. The expenditure towards AWA henceforth shall be included in the Labour cost for estimate purpose for future contracts and accordingly a suitable clause as under shall be incorporated in the NIT and Work Orders.

¶28

“The Contractors shall have to pay an amount of Rs.38.46 per day on actual attendance per month (not exceeding Rs.1000/- per month) to the workers engaged by them in the job, as Additional Welfare Amenity (AWA).”

¶29

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad while passing the Award dated 22.02.2017, has not considered this aspect rather it has gone

¶30

- 3 -

¶31

beyond the arena and even not properly reasoned out why it has gone to the cut of date of 01.10.2009. The only justification given by the learned Industrial Tribunal appears to be that the similar benefit has been given by the Steel Authority of India Limited.

¶32

It has further been submitted that since the petitionerorganization is a separate entity and benefit has been given by its own circular on its own capacity by the resolution of its Board of Directors that cannot be modified by the Tribunal referring to the circular of the different organization, may be the Steel Authority of India Limited. The notification/ circular has not been issued by any statutory authority rather the benefit has been extended by the management of one or another company.

¶33

6. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondent-union has supported the impugned Award and it has been submitted that the controller of the petitioner-organization is the Steel Authority of India Limited which is a public undertaking. The different benefits given by public sector undertaking to its employee in different organizations is not permissible and per se violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner-organization is situated within the same premises of Steel Authority of India Limited itself. Once it is public sector undertaking organization and giving different treatment to its employees is not permissible.

¶34

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that M/s. Bokaro Power Supply Company (P) Limited is a entity created by the joint venture of Damodar Valley Corporation and Steel Authority of India Limited. All the three companies are public sector undertaking companies. Still the benefits given to a organization cannot be equated with other organization as in the present case there are three organizations, i.e., Damodar Valley Corporation, Steel Authority of India Limited and the petitioner-organization itself. Every organization has its own financial constraint and financial implication. Considering the above, the board of directors have taken a resolution and benefit has been granted to one or another organization. In the present case, the benefit has been granted to the contract labourers w.e.f. 01.10.2011 by the Board of Directors and shifting the date of implementation giving reference to the resolution of the Steel Authority of India Limited is not permissible rather not warranted.

¶35

This Court finds that the Industrial Tribunal has travelled beyond its jurisdiction accordingly, the Award dated 22.02.2017

¶36

- 4 -

¶37

passed in Reference No.41 of 2012 by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad is, hereby, set aside.

¶38

8. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed.

¶39

9. In view of the disposal of the present writ petition, the pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

¶40

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶41

Chandan/-

Bokaro Power Supply Company Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Chief Executive Officer K Harinarayan v. Jharkhand Krantikari Mazdoor Union Through Its General Secretary D C Gosain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bokaro Power Supply Company Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Chief Executive Officer K Harinarayan v. Jharkhand Krantikari Mazdoor Union Through Its General Secretary D C Gosain

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

Awadhesh Kumar Ojha Vs the Employer in Relation to the Management of Sirka Group Argada Colliery of Ms C C L

Hindustan Media Ventures Limited Thr Its Authorized Representative Niraj Shukla Vs Labour

M/S Colliery Sramic Sangh Vs Union of India And Ors.

Angrej Rai Vs State of Jharkhand

The Project Officer Maheshpur Colliery Unider Govindpur Area No III Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs Sri Falhari Rajak

Shivlal Tudu Vs State of Jharkhand