Case title: Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. V. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers’ Union.
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4092-4093/2024
Decided on: 12.04.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta, Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case involves Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. And Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers’ Union. All 32 workers started working through a contractor from 1984 to 1994. A settlement was reached in 1997, regularizing 19 workers. The remaining 13 workers were not regularized. The Tribunal directed the regularization of the 13 workers based on the nature of their work. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision. The appellant objected to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, but it was found to be justified. The workers sought regularization and consequential backwages. The evidence supported the regular and perennial nature of the work performed by all 32 workers.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
The legal provisions involved in the case include:
Section 18(1) read with Section 36, Industrial Disputes Act: Binding settlement between parties.
Section 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act: Continuation of settlement unless terminated.
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under this Act.
N.C.W.A. IV (National Coal Wage Agreement IV): Provisions regarding engagement of contract laborers for permanent and perennial jobs.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The appellant, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., contended that the Award dated 23.05.2002 was legally flawed. They argued that the settlement was binding on the parties under Section 18(1) read with Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act and continued to be so under Section 19(2) of the Act. The appellant also claimed that the Tribunal had wrongly directed them to disburse backwages to the 13 workers, stating that backwages should not be automatically granted upon regularization. They further argued that Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act did not apply in this case as the workers were under the supervision of a contractor, not the appellant.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The respondent-union contended that all 32 workers were engaged in similar nature of work and should have been regularized. They argued that there was no distinction between the 19 workers who were regularized and the 13 workers who were left out. The respondent-union relied on the evidence of the personal manager and project officer of the company to support their claim that all 32 workers were engaged similarly. They also emphasized that the denial of regularization for the 13 workers was unjustified and illegal under the National Coal Wage Agreement IV. Additionally, they highlighted that the settlement reached in 1997 did not justify excluding the 13 workers from regularization.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court analyzed the facts of the case, including the nature of work performed by all 32 workers, the settlement reached in 1997, and the denial of regularization for the 13 workers. After hearing both parties, the court found that the Tribunal was justified in entertaining the industrial dispute and passing the award. The court upheld the Tribunal’s decision to regularize the 13 workers based on the evidence of the nature of work performed by all workers.
The court dismissed the appellant’s contention that the settlement was binding on all parties, stating that the denial of regularization for the 13 workers was unjustified. The court emphasized that there was no substantial question of law in the appeals and that the findings of fact by the Tribunal were unassailable. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no merit in the appeals filed by the appellant.
In the judgment, the court directed the appellant to calculate backwages for the workers from the decision of the Tribunal dated 23.05.2002. The court also noted that the denial of employment and regularization for the 13 workers was wrongful and ordered that there would be no restriction on their wages. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the respondents, the Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers’ Union, and upheld the Tribunal’s decision to regularize the 13 workers.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava
Click here to read the full judgement.
