'Tii : . BEFORETHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l PETITIONERS ^:1 //=• ^^> .^...^^ •^-~ -.•<§\--">..--"" v'y<^y ^' -ff''"\.-'' -cn^ .. <J\ ' ./• ^ ^^y^ ^fy ''<^"" ^' ^ w.P. N0. (^lt-P _/200f SERVICE IVIATTER Goutam Bose Aged about 36 years S/o. Shri G.N. Bose R/o. In front of Sanskritik Munch, Rajhara Baba Road, Pander Dalli, Dallirajhara, District Durg (C.G.) Ajay Kumar Pali Aged about 33 years ;S/o. Kishorilal Sahu, R/o. Behind, Sagar International Deepak Nagar Durg (C.G.) Prem Shankar Singh Aged about 35 years S/o. Shri R.S. Singh, R/o. •Near Shitla Mandir, ;,0pp. Bharat Petrol Pump, Main Road, Dalli Rajhara, DJstrict Durg (C.G.) Zaffer Iqbal Forooqui Aged about 36 years S/o. Late M.1. Forooqui, R/o. Block N0.41/B-II/D, Nirmala Sector Type, Dalli Rajhara, District Durg (C.G.) \v '•5. ^^^h ^^/- '""'•^^. ^/ft"A"i^ \^\ \\ •--^-1-^^- \.—-.^^y^ /6 /7^ ^9. •\0. Brijesh Kumar Aged about 37 years S/o. Shri Hit Narayan, R/o. Indira Colony, Dalli Rajhara, District Durg (C.G.) Lalit Joshi Aged about 41 years S/o. Shri J.P. Joshy, R/o. Shitla Mandir Chowk, Ward No.11. Main Road. Kwardha (C.G.) Vijay Dixit Aged about 34 years S/o. Shri G.N. Joshi, R/o. Indira Colony, Dalli Rajhara, District Durg (C.G.) IVIartand Singh Aged about 38 years S/o. Shri M.S. Thakur, R/o. Ward No.10, Rajput Bhawan Shanti Nagar, Chiklakasar Chandrakant Bhardwaj Aged about 38 years S/o. Shri C.L. Bhardwaj, R/o. Indira Colony, Dallirajhara, District Durg (C.G.) K.M. Sarvanan Aged about 37 years S/o. Shri K.M. Sunder, R/o.Shop No.36, BSP Shoping Complex Township Dallirajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) ?^^' ; Y^ ^</A"\-tNt \%\'t i'r,' t'l(w-Y^ i ii ; CC^iSl3796 / ' // \\ •\^'f^/~.'^- ^^•-^-^JJ '^^'^.^, 11. Gajendra Sahu Aged about 42 years S/o. Shri Onkar Lal Sahu, R/o. Aamapara Balod, District Durg (C.G.) 12. Nand Kumar Dadsena c ,c J t^ e i,e-, S/o. Shri H.L. Dadsena, R/o. C/o. K.A. Raju, Near Nirmala School, Dalli Rajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) 13. Jogendra Singh Aged about 33 years S/o. Shri Raghuvir Singh, R/o. Kaju STD, PCO New Bus Stand, Dallirajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) 14. Chaman Sapate Aged about 42 years S/o. Shri B.K. Sapate, R/o. Kusumkasa, Tahsil Balod, Distn'ct Durg (C.G.) 15. S.M. Saraf Aged about 42 years S/o. Mr. S.A. Saraf, R/o. Shop No. 35, BSP Shopping Complex, Township, Dallirajhara, District Durg (C.G.). 16. Binny Vergeese Aged about adult Qgr-li/3»c,pc"s S/o. Mr. K.P. Vergeese, .R/o. Opposite Block No.18, II/D Type Hospital, Sector- Dallirajhara,Dist.Durg (C.G.) \?> ll.i /.-'.. ^- ^f.f/h-.^N^ \^^ tP I u^WYA "i" U ••<y^YA ; .-^ [ CC -SQy^/9^ ^^___ /! \^ -^. ~^-Bf'''l-ffE^iS '*^:v-..»^<^!;^' ^^; 'r^^y 17. Devvrat Chakraborty Aged about 35 years S/o. Shri H.C. Chakraborty, R/o. Pander Dalli, Dallirajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) ^18. IVIanmohan-Sharma Aged about 33'years S/o. Shri Bhoju Ram Sharma, R/o. Main Road Old Market, Dallirajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) / 19. Vijay Kumar Sharma Aged about 35 years S/o. Shri C.K. Sharma, R/o. Shop No.21, B.S.P. Shopping Complex, Township, Dalli Rajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) ^ 20 Sapu Kumar Aged about 35 years S/o. Shri R.Krishnan, R/o. Shop No.35, BSP Shopping Complex, Township Dallirajhara,Dist.Durg (C.G.) / 21. Mahendra Prajapati Aged about 40 years S/o. Shri T.B; Prajapati, R/o. Gayatri Mandir, Dalli Rajhara, Dist.Durg (C.G.) / 22. Ballu Ram Aged about 37 years S/o. Shri Chhabil, R/o. Konde Power House near School No.33, Dglli Rajhara, District Durg (C.G.) V^A ^ 1\' /23. Bharosaram Sahu Aged about 36 years S/o. Shri Ramji Sahu, R/o. Bhagolipara camp No.1, New Shiv Mandir, Dalli Rajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) 24. Kuldeep Kumar Aged about 35 years S/o. Shri Sohan Lal, R/o. House No.59, Ward No.14, near Nirmala School, Dalli Rajhara , Dist, Durg (C.G.) ,25. K.T. Kosy Aged about 36 years S/o. Late K.K. Thomas, R/o. Hospital Sector, Dalli Rajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) /26. Sunil Kumar Sonwani — aged about Adult . oec-rl'So'ie'0^- S/o. Shri J.L. Sonwani, R/o. Block No.4/8, 11/D Type Hospital Sector Dalli Rajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) / 27 Dhanraj Singh Aged about 35 years S/o. Shri Kalaram, R/o. Old Market Main Road, Dalli Rajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) / 28 Ram Singh Aged about 35 years S/o. Shri Betanlal, R/o. Drilling Camp Near Shahid Chowk, Dallirajhara, District Durg (C.G.) ^ ^^^ ^.P/'A.-.-^A 'V^,^ i' ' M /SCTYA 5 \\ \\ '•^^K9?^- '.\ ••"'is['i'2-lcy / 29. Indra Vijay Kumar Aged about 37 years S/o. Shri Sarvan Kumar, R/o. Sahid Chowk, ward No.14, Camp-l, Dalli Rajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) /30. P. Appal Raju Aged about 37 years S/o. Shri P. Suribala, R/o. 256 Colony, STC, PCO Dallirajhara, • Dist.Durg (C.G.) / 31. Kanhaiyya, ^. Adult 06 t^ 3V tjco^ S/o. Shri Munnaram, R/o. Near New Bus-Stand, Dalli Rajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) / 32 Anil Kumar Dekate Aged about 35 years S/o. Shri M.R. Dekate, R/o. Behind Nirmala School, Dalli Rajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) ^33. Lakhan Kumar Sahu Aged about 40 years S/o. Shri M.R. Sahu, C/o. Nirmala School Dalli Rajhara, District Durg (C.G.) 34. Ramsai Dewangan Aged about 35 years S/o. Shri Maksudan, R/o. Ajahta Tailors, Gup'ta Chowk, Main Road, Dalli Rajhara, Dist.Durg (C.G.) ^ |IR- ^^®%B^S^€^@®S ^ ^'£6""'1'!-C?>< ^''.^^'••-^:0 -^ /vfS,'' "\--y:: Kff^^" 'v^v ipfM(i^'^ \\ : CC-W3(96 ; t^^':^ x^7,"^ 35. Mohan Sahu Aged about 37 years S/o. Shri Harakram Sahu, R/o. Pawak Kirana Stores, Railway Dabai Dallirajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) 36. Nakul Ram Aged about 37 years S/o. Shri Anjor Singh, R/o. Sub-post Chikhali, Main Office Dalli, Dallirajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) , 37. Kritan Lal (Kirtanlal) Aged about 39 years S/o. Shri Baisakhu, R/o. Sahu Kiran Stores, Rajhara, Baba Dabai, Pander, Dalli Rajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) /38. Kumar Singh Aged about 37years S/o. Shri Samaru Ram, C/o. Nakulram Sub-post Chikhali Main Office Dalli, Dalli Rajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) 39 Pardeshi Aged about 39 years S/o. Ramuram, C/o. Nakulram Sub-post Chikhali Main Office Dalli, Dalli Rajhara, Dist, Durg (C.G.) / 40. Sapan Kumar Benjamin Aged about 37 years S/o. Shri Nirmal Kumar, R/o. Qtr.No.121/ IMA type Hospital Sector Dalli Rajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) / •^S5^^^"td^fft VI /",41/ 42. 43 /44. / 45^ /-46^ Jacob Vergeese Adult , oc, rA "S.^ ircvS S/o. Mr. M.C. Vergeese, R/o. Qtr.No.93/A/St No. 13, Township, Dalli Rajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) Satdeo Aged about 34 years S/o. Shri Nandlal, R/o. Jagriti Computer New Bus Stand, Dallirajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) Kedar Nath Aged about 35 years S/o. Phaghi Bai, R/o. Bose STD, PCO Rajhara, Baba Road, Pander Dalli, Dallirajhar.Dist. Durg (C.G.) Vidyut IVIukharjee Aged about 38 years S/o. Shri M.C. Mukharjee, R/o. new Bus Stand, Dalli Rajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) Eshwar Lal Patel Aged about 43 years S/o. Shri Sonu Ram, R/o. Babli General Stores, Gandhi Chowk, Dalli Rajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) Babloo Das Aged about 35 years S/o. Shri Sudhirdas, R/o. Chikhalakasa, Dist. Durg (C.G.) \€ / ':a£SS!>- ^^:1^ ft'..~ / hf:\".^^ \% •f\\1 j'j"? M^X5 i , i] •t--'W319S i \.'i \y^cc^q^l/ ^" / 47. Ajay Ashtikar Aged about 36 years S/o. Shri V.L. Ashtikar, R/o. In front of police Station Dalli Rajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) 48. Sarad Sahu Adult a^v^ '^T.^i-c^S . S/o. Shri P.R. Sahu, C/o. K.A. Raju, Near Nirmala School, Dalli Rajhara, District Durg (C.G.) 49. Jayaram , o-i F d 3.s~ <in S/o. Shri T.R. Vishwanath, R/o. Shop No.36, B.S.P. Shopping Complex, Township Dalli Rajhara, dist. Durg (C.G.) 50. Jagganathan , fig A.r< 'i.?c«"c>^-. -• S/o. Shri K.C.G. Nair, R/o. J.J. Niwas Near LIC Colony Hospital Sector, Dalli Rajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) 51. Raju Vinayak Aged about 39 years S/o. Smt. Paras Bai, Near Govt. Primary School, Purana Bazar, Dalli Rajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) 52. Mahesh Pandey Aged about 35 years S/o. Shri G.C. Pandey, R/o. Shop No.16, B.S.P. Shopping Complex, Township Dallirajhara, Dist. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS /1. II ?,.OtA''''>.;s~^' •^^ -.—. '"'-'-•'^'^ / v^.. '-' "" ^./O \\ .''".'" "s -.'" ! A.'.-'). \^ y^L-ti.YA i ff' '. -fi6 { ' if 0-6/|27.«—/J {^:-:'-^/ ^<-^';~--£^'^t<y / Union of India Through :- Secretary Ministry of Labour Shram-Mantralaya Govt. of India/Bharat Sarkar NEW DELHI Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Office of the Assistant Labour-Commissioner Central Behind Balaji Mandir, Anand r Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Steel Authority of India Limited. Through: Managing Director Bhilai Steel Plant, Steel Authority of India Limited Ispat- Bhawan, Bhilai- Nagar, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) IVIines - Nlanager Rajhara Mines Bhilai Steel Plant Steel Authority of India Ltd. Rajhara, Tah. Rajhara, District Durg (C.G.) .^'/ WmTPETlTLONUNDERARTlCLE 226/227 OF CQNST1TUT10N OF INDIA ».. "%. '%.. 1 .-s-^ y ^, ingle Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Goutam Bose and Others Union of India inderArSicie 228/227 of the Shri V. G. Tamaskar, counsel forthe petitioners. Shri Anand Verma, Standing counsel for respondents No.1 & 2/Union of India. Shri Goutam Bhaduri, counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4. (Passed on X/09/2010) By this petition, the petitioners have assailed legality and validifr/ of order dated 08-07-2003 (Annexure P-5), bywhich, Government of india has refused to make reference of t'ne dtspute for adjudication by ths Industrial Tribunal. Petitioners have been made a!ternative prayer for a direction to the Bhliai Stee! Plant (Stee! Authority of India Limited) to appoint them against the posts on which they have been worked for more than 240 days. (2) It is pertinent to record that representafive of She petitioners Shri K.C.G.K. Nair and Others a!ready filed a writ petition before this Court registered as W.P.No.2721 of 2003 wherein the legaiity and validity of order dated 08-07-2003 (Annexure P-5) has been assailed. In the said writ petition examining the !ega!ity and validity of order dated 08-07-2003 which is impugned herein a!so, thls Court has come to the conclusion that the order is not sustainabte in the eye of law and order dated 08-07-2003 has been set aside with a direction to the Government of India to make reference So the Industria! Tribunat for iiudication. f^- ^^£s> '"^ -.^/ (3) The alternative prayer made in this writ petitlon is that this Court itself may take up the matter for adjudication of the dispute and decide notwithstanding availability of the remedy of adjudication by the Tribunai. The petitioners are the persons, who claimed that they were initially engaged as unpaid trainee, but their seivices were regularized and they worked in production jobs a!ong with productlon staff. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as workmen in the sen/ices of the Bhiiai Steet Plant and they were shown as Trainee on the papers. !t is further pieaded that after having been appointed in the year 1981, the Management after about a period of 365 days terminated the sewices of the petitioners. !n para 5 of the petition, petitioners have reproduced She details regarding name of each of the petitioners, their appointment order number, date of order of termination and B. Form number, in tabuiar form. It has a!so been indicated in the said tabte, the number of B. Form regisier wherein their names were entered into, So contend that the appointment and termination orders were issued by the Senior Manager (T/S/E) Vestibuia Training Centre, !.O.C. Rajhara, Steel Authority of India Limited, Bhllai Steel Plant. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that merely because questions of fact are invoived for adjudication, this Court is jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia is not taken away. It is also contended that from the pleadings and material placed on record in the presenf case, it is a clear case where the Management has admitted that the petitioners were working with the Management as workMen and further that there is documentaiy proof in the form of entries made in the Form B register to establish that {he petitioners were workmen, and therefore, even if a case for reference is made out, in the present circumstances as the petitioners are out of job since 1991, extra-ordinaiy jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of ./ '••n~:<Ii,.. r.^^..: -\ ' !S^-.:.., -5-. ' w.^"^, ^. • "•"• ',..'* {Z^ India may be invoked and the iis may be decided. In support of his submission, iearned counse! appearing for the petitioners relies upon the declsion of the Supreme Court in the case of Trsmbak Ri Workers Unson Others, (2003)6t Samanta Vers'js ofSndia and Others, (2004) 1 Suprema Court Casss 805, Laljl ShamJ! Kuhada, vs. Porbandar Nagarpalika, 2004 (L.I.C.) '<-, -aiais f* (4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in so far as petitioners' prayer for reinstatement in service is concerned, it requires adjudication of seriously disputed question of fact inasmuch as the Management has seriously disputed and categorically denied that the petitioners were ever employed as workmen. Learned counsel forthe Managementsubmitted that the petitioners v/ere on!y engaged as a Trainee and they were neither given any appoiritment order in writing nor were engaged to work so as to become a workman. !t is further argued by teamed counsel for the Management that the petltioners have rested their claim on their oral assertlon ofthey being employed and there is no other documentary evidence to show that they were ever appointed by the Management of Bhilai Steei Plant. He submits fhat the other documentary evidence on record inc!uding Annexure R-1 & R-2 ciearly show that the petitioners claim of they havlng been appointed and worked as workmen, is bogus as they were only engaged as trainee and it is their ow.n admission reflected from their application and bond for training. Learned counsei for fhe respondenfNo.3 & 4 piaced reliance in the case of Haryana State Eiectronics Development Corporation Ltd.. vs. Mamni, 2006 AiR SCW 2979, Englneer, C.A.D., v. Dhan Kunwar, 2006 A!R SCW 3571, Ei'ectronics Corporation of !ndia Limited v. Electronics Corporation of \3> Vishva Vidhys!aya, v. Devi Singh, 2008 AIR SCW 1383, Mahboob Ji iii anu ••jtiiurs v •hayat GujrauSa & Another, 2008 t . La! Farmers Train'mg ?reme uoun uase. (5) The petitioners have p!aced on record proceedings of conciiiation drawn by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) to demonstrate that during the course of the conciliation proceedings, the Management did not dispute that the petitioners v/ere employees and they have worked. (6) From the pieadings made by the parties and the documents which have been placed on record, ! am of the considered opinion that present is a case where not oniy a dispute of fact but serious factual dispute arise for consideration which cannot be gone into the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. !t is petitioners' assertion that they were inlSial!y engaged as Trainee and have been employed to work. There is no written order of appointment. The only evidence placed on record by the petitioners is statutory Form B register entry that too in respect of the petitioner No.1, Goutam Bose. In that document a!so, petitioner No.1 has been shown as Trainee. l am not inciined to accept the contention of iearned counse! for the petitioners that during conciliation proceedings, She Management admitted the petitioners as empioyees. Though petitioners' contention was that their engagement as a Tralnee v/as oniy for paper purposes, the respondents maintained that the petitioners were engaged as a Trainee only which cannot be out-rightiy rejected as the respondents have filed documents on record to that effect. Therefore, y" "\ »A. 'S ;^ •t^!'' ^ rTf^if^" am of the opinion that the nforesaid factua! dispute requires proper consideration by recording evidence in a fact finding enquiry. Learned counse! for the petitioners sought to emphasize that in the present case, !ooking to the nature of pieadings and admitted position on record, it is not necessaiy to relegate the petitioners to work out alternative remedy reiying upon the judgment in the case of Radha Raman Samanfa Versus Bank 'ar Na. ibmfesion that adi (L.I.C.) . 1397. To buttress his ie case established that the employees were on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Trambak Rubber Industries Ltd. Versus Hashik Workers Union ittea' facts as been pi r> Supreme Court Cases 416 and State of Gujarat vs. Chauhan Ramybha! Karsanbhai, 2004(L!.C.)i453. !n the case of Trambsk Rubber Industries Ltd. (supra), taking into considerafion the oral evidence on record !ed by the Management that workers were engaged in production of goods and no other workmen were empioyed for production of goods and that no trainees were engaged, came to the conclusion that those trainees were in facS workmen. That was a case where the proceedings were dravi/n before the industriai Tribunal and evidence was recorded. !n the present case, the Management has specifica!ly denied that the petitioners were engaged in production. !n a similar circumstance dealt with by the Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Chauhan Ramj'ibhai Karsanbhal (supra). ^n the case of Radha Raman Samanta (supra), the Supreme Court he!d thaS examination of undisputed facts are not debarred in a proceeding under Articie 226 and this Court could iook into undisputed documents and to infer as to the status of employment ofthe petitioner before it. %-. I ^ :':. •^•t^" .••*' t^ As has been discussed above, this Court is unable to draw any different inference of petitioners were being workmen on the basis of any undisputed document. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed heavy reliance on the statutory Form B register entrtes to submit that those entries were clearly show that the petitioners were engaged in the work of production. Petitioners have placed on record on!y one Form-B register extract in respect of petitioner No.1- Goutam Bose. There also, his status has been shown as trainee. The said statutory Form-B register extract in respect of other employees are not avaiiable on r.scord. Learned counse! for the petitioners though argued that an adverse inference should be drawn, whetherthe respondents arestill possessed ofthose records or the same have been lost, itself is a matter of enquiry, which wi!l require evidence before adverse inference is warranted. In the totality of the cireumstances, therefore, I find that the petition involves determination of seriously disputed questions of fact which wouid require recording of evidence. (7) Though, it cannot be disputed that this Court has ample jurisdiction to decide even factua! dispute, at the same time in appropriate cases, this Court can decline to exercise his discretion, if it comes to the conclusion.that seriously disputed questions offact are involved. The present is one such case. Hence, i am not inciined to enter into fhe seriously disputed questions of fact as to whether the petitioners were engaged as a Trainee or employed to work and the documents relating to training were only paper exercise to deny them the benefits as a workmen, to which, they may be entitled under the law.It would be a matter of enquiry before the 'ndustrial Tribunal. Therefore, prayer of the petitioners that respondents may be dlrected to appoint them, cannot be granted in this petition. It would be open for the petitioners to establish their case in the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, to which, the Government is now \ '<"'" <»' 3r TUMANE / required to make reference in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.2721 of2003(K.C.S.K. In view offoregoing, the petition is fina!ly disopsed off. Sd/- M.M. Shrivastava Judge