Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.  11003   OF 2016 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13727 of 2014]

 RASHTRIYA COLLIERY MAZDOOR  SANGH, DHANBAD                   .....APPELLANT

VERSUS

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO MANAGEMENT OF KENDUADIH COLLIERY OF M/S BCCL & ORS       .....RESPONDENTS

  J U D G M E N T

Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J

1 Leave granted.

2    The dispute in the present case relates to eighty eight workmen who had  

worked as ‘Tyndals’ at the Kenduadih Colliery (of the first respondent).  On  

14 May 1993 a Reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal by the  

appropriate government under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes  

Act, 1947, of the following dispute :

Page 2

2

“Whether the demand of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh for employment of Shri Arjun Paswan and 87 others, as per list attached is justified?  If so to what relief the workers are entitled”.

The job description of  Tyndals  required these  workmen to be  engaged in

moving  engineering  stores,  drums  of  oil  and  grease  and  they  were  also

responsible  for  setting  up  and  dismantling  of  structures,  as  well  as  the

installation  and  withdrawal  of  machinery.  The  Industrial  Tribunal  by  its

Award dated 16 July 1996 held that :

“it  is  beyond  the  question  that  the  persons  worked under  the  contractor  are  genuine  one  who  are  the present  workmen and  they  performed the  job  which was  of  permanent  and  perennial  in  nature  and  the person  performing  the  same  type  of  job  in  other collieries  were  regularized  and  so  no  doubt  a stepmotherly attitude was taken so far these concerned workmen are concerned”.   

The Tribunal  directed  the  management  to  form a  panel  of  the  concerned

workmen in accordance with seniority and to absorb or regularize them either

in the work of Tyndal or in any suitable category so that the list is exhausted

within a period of one year.  Backwages were denied.

3 The first  respondent  filed a writ  petition before the Jharkhand High

Court to challenge the Award (CWJC 1655 of 1997).  On 18 May 2004 a

Page 3

3

learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court modified the Award of the

Industrial Tribunal and directed that as and when the management intends to

employ regular workmen, it shall grant preference to the workmen governed

by the Award if they are otherwise suitable by relaxing the requirements of

age  and  academic  qualifications.   This  order  of  the  High  Court  attained

finality.   

4 In 2007 the Union representing the workmen filed a writ petition before

the High Court (WP(L) 4915 of 2007) seeking implementation of the order

dated 18 May 2004.  While disposing of the writ petition on 24 September

2010  the  High  Court  recorded  the  statement  of  the  management  that  no

vacancy had occurred in the post of Tyndal since the judgment which was

rendered  on  18  May  2004.   However,  the  High  Court  recorded  the

undertaking of the management that if any vacancy arises in future and the

post is advertised for which the workmen apply, they would be considered for

the post and that the management would also accommodate them if there was

a vacancy under any other category.  Thereafter, a Review Petition was filed

before the High Court based on information which was obtained under the

Right  to  Information  Act.   The  learned  Single  Judge  held  that  the

Page 4

4

employment which was granted by the management between 2004 and 2008

(as  disclosed  in  the  response  to  the  RTI  query  on  11  September  2008)

indicated that  the appointment was made only on compassionate grounds.

Once  again,  while  disposing  of  the  Review Petition  the  statement  of  the

management  was  recorded  that  if  and  when  posts  were  advertised,  the

workmen would be entitled to apply and would be considered.  The rejection

of the Review Petition has led to the filing of these proceedings.

5 The Appellant has relied on certain proceedings which took place in

another distinct reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Reference 204 of 1994.

The  reference  was  at  the  behest  of  the  Union  representing  the  workmen

engaged in one of the collieries of the first respondent.  An Award was made

by  the  Industrial  Tribunal  on  14  August  2000  directing  regularization  of

seventy  workmen  in  general  mazdoor  category  No.1.   The  Award  was

confirmed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 26 July 2001 while

dismissing the writ petition of the management.  However, in a Letters Patent

Appeal  the  Award  was  modified  by  directing  that  as  and  when  the

management intended to appoint regular workmen, it would grant preference

to  the  workmen concerned in  the  reference,  if  necessary, by  relaxing the

Page 5

5

conditions of age and academic qualifications.  The Union filed a Special

Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution before this Court.  This

Court  by  a  Judgment  and  Order  dated  18  November  2009,  set  aside  the

judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and restored the Award of

the Tribunal granting reinstatement without backwages.

6 The  above  judgment  of  this  Court  cannot  come  to  the  aid  of  the

Appellant for the simple reason that in that case, the Union had challenged

the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court before this Court.  In

the  present  case,  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  dated  18  May  2004

modifying the Award of the Industrial Tribunal attained finality.  In fact, in

their  writ  petition  of  2007  the  workmen  sought  implementation  of  the

judgment rendered on 18 May 2004.  The entitlement that the workmen claim

must  hence  flow  out  of  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  by  which  the

workmen were entitled to the grant of a preference in future employment by

the management by relaxing conditions of age and educational qualifications.

This distinction has, in fact, been noted in a judgment recently delivered by

this Court  on 3 October 2016,  in  Workmen Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor

Sangh v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (C.A. 13953 of 1015).  This Court while

Page 6

6

declining to grant reinstatement allowed compensation to fourteen workmen

whose services were in issue, each in the amount of Rupees two lakhs in full

and final settlement of all claims for compensation.  The relevant part of the

judgment rendered by this Court on 3 October 2016 is extracted below :

“7 The basic  grievance  of  the  workmen is  that  as  a result of the position which has ensued, the workmen governed by the present proceedings of whom only 14 are left in the fray, are virtually without any relief or remedy  in  practical  terms.   The  workmen  were engaged  between  1987  and  1989.   Nearly  27  years have elapsed since  then.   Many  of  the  14 workmen would  be  on  the  verge  of  attaining  the  age  of retirement.   There is  no occasion at  present  to grant them reinstatement since in any event, such relief has been denied in the judgment of the High Court dated 18  May  2004  which  has  not  been  challenged. However,  the  predicament  of  the  workmen  is  real. Two sets of workmen in the same colliery under the same company have received unequal treatment.  The present  group  of  workmen  has  faced  attrition  in numbers  and  has  been  left  with  no  practical  relief. This situation should be remedied, to the extent that is now permissible  in  law, having  regard  to  the  above background. In order to render full, final and complete justice,  we  are  of  the  view  that  an  order  for  the payment of compensation in final settlement of all the claims,  dues  and  outstandings  payable  to  the  14 workmen in question would meet the ends of justice.   

8  We accordingly  direct  that  the  Respondents  shall deposit with the Central Government Tribunal (No.2) at Dhanbad an amount of  Rs. Two lakhs each towards compensation payable to each one of the 14 workmen. This amount shall be in full and final satisfaction of all the claims, demands and outstandings.  Upon deposit

Page 7

7

of  the  amount,  the  Award  of  the  Industrial  Tribunal dated  9  September  1996,  as  modified  by  the  High Court on 18 May 2004 shall  be marked as satisfied. The Respondents shall deposit the amount as directed hereinabove, within a period of two months from today before  the  Central  Government  Industrial  Tribunal (No.2) Dhanbad in Reference 26 of 1993.  The amount shall be disbursed to the workmen concerned subject to due verification of identity by the Industrial Tribunal”.

7   In the present case, the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent

before this Court contains a specific admission that the eighty eight workmen

governed by the reference were working as ‘Tyndals’ on surface as well as in

underground mines through contractors at Kenduadih  Colliery.  The counter

affidavit states that the reliance which is sought to be placed by the workmen

on replies to queries under the Right to Information Act is misleading and

that the appointments in those cases  were made by the first respondent in

category I whereas ‘Tyndals’ are appointed in category IV.  We may note at

this stage, that during the pendency of these proceedings an order was passed

on 11 December 2015 to enable the respondents to ascertain the position with

regard to the vacancies in the above category.  A Committee was constituted

by the first respondent which by its report dated 2 January 2016 has observed

that there is no vacancy in the post of Tyndal, category IV either in respect of

Kenduadih Colliery or  the  Pootkee Balihari  area  as  a  whole.   Kenduadih

Page 8

8

Colliery  is  stated  to  be  a  closed  mine.   A statement  has  been  annexed

indicating the existence of surplus manpower.   

8 In  the  Judgment  of  this  Court  rendered  on  3  October  2016,  noted

earlier, reasons have been indicated as to why it would not be practicable to

grant reinstatement particularly since such relief was denied in the judgment

of the High Court dated 18 May 2004, which has not been challenged.   The

workmen in that case were engaged between1987-1989.  Nearly twenty seven

years had elapsed and many of the workmen would have been on the verge of

retirement.  However, while taking note of the fact that two sets of workmen

in the  same colliery and under  the  same company have received unequal

treatment, this Court ordered payment of compensation each in the amount of

Rupees two lakhs to the workmen.  The workmen in that case were employed

as general mazdoors.  The workmen in the present case belong to the skilled

category of  Tyndals  which as  noted earlier  are  comprised in  category IV.

Having  due  regard  to  this  position,  in  the  present  case,  it  would  be

appropriate to direct that the first respondent shall in full and final settlement

of all the claims and outstandings of the eighty eight workmen concerned in

the  reference deposit  an amount  of  Rupees four  lakhs each per  workman

Page 9

9

before  the  Central  Government  Industrial  Tribunal  (No.2)  Dhanbad  in

Reference  54  of  1993.   The  amount  shall  be  disbursed  to  the  workmen

concerned  subject  to  due  verification  of  their  identity  by  the  Industrial

Tribunal.  This amount shall be in full and final satisfaction of all claims,

demands and outstandings payable to the workmen.

9 The Civil Appeal shall stand allowed in the above terms.  There shall

be no orders as to costs.   

                    .........................................CJI                                           [T S  THAKUR]  

             …..........................................J                               [Dr D Y  CHANDRACHUD]

                        ..............................................J                          [L NAGESWARA RAO]

New Delhi November 21, 2016.