Page 1

REPORTABLE

       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A No. 2 OF 2016

IN   

CIVIL APPEAL No. 13953 OF 2015

WORKMEN RASTRIYA COLLIERY                  .....APPELLANT MAZDOOR  SANGH             

Versus  

BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. & ANR.                .....RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J          

1 The Appellant, which is a registered trade union, espoused the cause of the

workmen  engaged  at  Balihari  Colliery  under  Bharat  Coking  Coal  Limited

(BCCL).   Of  the  20 original  workmen,  14  are  left  in  the  fray.  In  1993,  a

reference was made by the appropriate government under Section 10(1)(d) of

Page 2

2

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

at  Dhanbad  on  the  demand raised  by  the  workmen for  regularisation.   The

reference was as follows:-

“Whether the demand of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor  Sangh for regularization of the workmen on the role of Balihari Colliery of M/s BCCL Ltd., and payments to  them of wages as per N.C.W.A. is justified?  If so, to  what relief the workmen are entitled?”  

The Industrial Tribunal delivered an Award on 9 September 1996 in the above

mentioned  reference,  Reference  26  of  1993.   By  its  Award,  the  Industrial

Tribunal allowed the reference in the following terms:-

“The management of BCCL is directed to regularise the  concerned  workmen  as  per  annexure  of  the reference  as  permanent  employee  as  per  NCWA in Cat.  I  within  three  months  from  the  date  of publication of this Award with the wages and other amenities to which they are entitled to.  But no back wages is given nor is it claimed.  No cost is awarded also  to  either  of  the  parties.   Thus  the  reference  is disposed of and this is my Award”.  

2 Separately,  the  appropriate  government  made  another  reference  on  11

August  1994,  being  Reference  204  of  1994,  under  Section  10(1)(d)  of  the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of 76 workmen who had been denied

regularisation in Balihari Colliery.  In that reference, an Award was rendered by

the Industrial Tribunal on 14 August 2000 directing BCCL to regularise 73 out

of 76 workmen.  The management challenged the Award in writ proceedings

before the High Court (CWJC 3824 of 2000).  The High Court by a judgment

Page 3

3

dated 26 July 2001 dismissed the writ petition.  In a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA

543 of  2001),  a  Division Bench of  the High Court  by a  judgment  dated  10

March 2003 modified the Award by directing that as and when the management

intended to appoint regular workmen, it shall give preference to the workmen in

question,  if  necessary  by  relaxing  conditions  of  age  and  eligibility.   The

judgment of the High Court was challenged before this Court in Civil Appeal

No. 3962 of 2006 by the Union.  By a judgment and order dated 18 November

2009 the Civil Appeal was allowed and the Award of the Industrial Tribunal was

restored.  In consequence the workmen were directed to be reinstated though

without any backwages.   

3 In  the  present  case,  the  Award  of  the  Industrial  Tribunal

dated 9 September 1996 was modified by a judgment dated 18 May 2004 of the

High Court in CWJC 1654 of 1997.  The Award was modified in the following

terms:-     

“…the impugned awards are modified to  the extent that  as  and when M/s.  B.C.C.L.  intends  to  employ regular workmen, it shall give preference to these 88 plus 20 persons, if they are otherwise found suitable by  relaxing  the  conditions  as  to  the  works  age appropriately taking into consideration their age at the time of their initial appointment and also by relaxing the  condition  regarding  academic/technical qualification”.     

No appeal was filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court

dated  18  May  2004  by  the  Union.   However,  on  22  August  2011  a

Page 4

4

representation  was  submitted  on  behalf  of  the  workmen  to  the

management seeking employment for those governed by the Award dated

9  September  1996,  as  modified  by  the  High  Court  on  18  May  2004.

Eventually, a writ petition was filed before the High Court under Article

226  seeking  a  direction  to  the  employer  to  furnish  employment  to  20

workmen in terms of the order of the High Court dated 18 May 2004.  The

writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge on 21 March 2012 on

the ground that execution of the Award of the Industrial Tribunal could not

be sought by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226.  In a Letters

Patent  Appeal,  the Division Bench by a  judgment  dated  16 July  2012

affirmed the view of the learned Single Judge.  The present proceedings

have  been  instituted  to  challenge  the  judgment  of  the  Division  Bench

dated 16 July 2012.   

4  During the pendency of these proceedings an effort was made to

secure an amicable resolution of the dispute, which was unsuccessful.  By

an order dated 28 August 2015 the management was directed to dispose of

the  representation  submitted  on  behalf  of  the  workmen  on  22  August

2011.  Accordingly, a reasoned order was issued on 16 September 2015 by

the Project Officer.  The order notes that after the Award of the Industrial

Tribunal was modified by the learned Single Judge on 18 May 2004, the

workmen initiated a second round of litigation only in 2011 by filing a

Page 5

5

representation  on  22  August  2011  and  thereafter  instituting  writ

proceedings.   The  order  rejecting  the  representation  notes  that  the

workmen had worked in 1987-1989 with a dummy contractor and nearly

26 years  had elapsed since then.   BCCL, it  has been stated,  was until

recently a sick company under the BIFR and had not initiated any regular

process of recruitment after the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18

May 2004.  However, it has been noted that the management would make

a sincere endeavour to grant preference to the 14 workmen in case any

fresh recruitment is made subject to age and physical requirements being

met.  

5 Leave was granted in these proceedings on 27 November 2015.  

6 The narration  of  facts  indicates  that  the  Award of  the  Industrial

Tribunal dated 9 September 1996 directed the management of BCCL to

regularise  the  workmen,  but  without  backwages.   The  Award  was,

however, modified by the High Court on 18 May 2004.  As a result, the

management  was  only  required  in  case  it  intended  to  employ  regular

workmen,  to  give  preference  to  the  workmen  in  question  by  relaxing

conditions as to age and eligibility.  The order of the High Court was not

challenged  by  the  Union  representing  the  workmen.   Evidently,  no

challenge was raised to the modification of the Award by the High Court

unlike in the case of Reference 204 of 1994.  In that case, the Award of the

Page 6

6

Industrial Tribunal was modified by a Division Bench of the High Court in

a Letters Patent Appeal on 10 March 2003.  The judgment of the Division

Bench was challenged before this Court by the Union as a result of which,

by a final judgment and order dated 18 November 2009, the Award of the

Industrial Tribunal was restored and reinstatement was ordered without

backwages.  In the present case, however, the fact remains that the order

of the High Court dated 18 May 2004 was never challenged.  

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

Page 7

7

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 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.

Page 8

8

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

shall be no order as to costs.  

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

                                                            ..............................................J          [A M KHANWILKAR]

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

New Delhi October 03, 2016