Dismissed

Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment v. Jharkhand Vikash Shramik Sangh through Its President Shri Naresh Prasad Singh

Jharkhand HC5 May 2023LPA/97/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Letters Patent Appeal challenged an order setting aside a Ministry of Labour letter refusing to refer a dispute to the Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge's view that the Ministry lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the employer-employee relationship dispute, which must be referred to the Industrial Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal stands dismissed; the order of the Single Judge setting aside the letter dated 06.05.2015 is affirmed.

Union of India through Secretary Ministry… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

L.P.A. No. 97 of 2022

¶3

Union of India through its Secretary, having its office at Ministry of Labour, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi

¶4

Section Officer, Ministry of Labour, having its office at Shram Shakti Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi

¶5

... Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Jharkhand Vikash Shramik Sangh through its President Shri Naresh Prasad Singh, son of Late Rameshwar Singh, resident of Hindustan Zinc Limited Colony, Tundu, Madhuban, Dhanbad

¶8

Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman –cum-Managing Director having its office at Koyala Nagar, Saraidhela, Dhanbad

¶9

General Manager, Barora Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited having its office at Koyala Nagar, Saraidhela, Dhanbad

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellants : Mr. Laxman Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. 2&3 : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate

¶12

¶13

Order No. 07 Dated 05^th May, 2023

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶15

The appellants have through this Letters Patent Appeal assailed the order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(L) No. 3898 of 2015 wherein the impugned letter dated 06.05.2015 to the writ application was set aside with a direction to the appellants to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal.

¶16

Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no employer-employee relationship and moreover no documentary evidence was also produced in support of such claim and therefore the impugned order dated 06.05.2015, refusing to refer the dispute for adjudication before the Tribunal was in accordance with law. It has further been submitted that the learned Single Judge had committed an error in coming to a conclusion that the Section Officer did not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate any issue as it was the ministry which had refused to send the dispute for adjudication and the said decision was communicated by the Section Officer.

¶17

A dispute was raised by Rameshwar Chouhan and 37 others engaged by the management of BCCL and a conciliation proceeding was initiated regarding the matter of regularization of the said employees. The conciliation ended in a failure and a failure report was submitted to the Assistant Labour

¶18

¶19

Commissioner, Central, Dhanbad who had send it to the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi along with a written statement of the management, rejoinder of the union and minutes of the conciliation proceedings. Vide letter dated 06.05.2015, Section Officer, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India had communicated the decision of the Ministry, refusing to refer the dispute for adjudication which reads as follows:-

¶20

“The ID raised by Jharkhand Vikash Shramik Sangh for regularization of S/Sh. Rameshwar Chouhan and 37 others as Driver Helper (Khalasai) and Supervisor (Munshi) by the management of Muriadih Open Cast Project/Muriadih Colliery of BCCL is baseless, since they never worked under the direct control of the Management. As such, there were never employer and employee relationship exists between them. Moreover, the Union failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate their claims.”

¶21

It appears from the said impugned letter dated 06.05.2015 that there has been an adjudication on the issue as to whether there was employer-employee relationship between the BCCL and concerned persons who had raised the industrial disputes. The question was of regularization of 38 emoployees and it has rightly been held by the learned Single Judge that the authority of the letter dated 06.05.2015 did not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate the said dispute. The dispute which has been raised by 38 workmen can only be decided by the Industrial Tribunal.

¶22

In such circumstances, therefore, the learned Single Judge had rightly set aside the letter dated 06.05.2015 as contained in memo No. L-20012/113/2014IR(CM-I) with a direction to the appellant to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal. We do not find any error in the impugned order dated 24.03.2021 passed in W.P.(L) No. 3898 of 2015 and consequently this appeal stands dismissed.

¶23

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶24

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶25

Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment v. Jharkhand Vikash Shramik Sangh through Its President Shri Naresh Prasad Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment v. Jharkhand Vikash Shramik Sangh through Its President Shri Naresh Prasad Singh

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

Chanakya Bnr Hotel through Its Director Mr Vinayak Kocchar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Cum Commissioner Commercial Taxes Deptt

Reema Devi Vs Amit Kumar

Malika Nayak Vs Shiv Prasad Nayak

M/S Neelam Devi Vs Joint Commissioner Office of the Commissioner Cgst and Central Excise (Appeal)

Mukesh Kumar Vs Mrs Kumari Puja

Ms the Tinplate Company of India Limited through Its Deputy Manager Namely Banku Bihari Bag Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Commercial Taxes