Case: Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh Dhanbad Vs. Emp. In Relation To Mang. Of Kend.C.&amp;Ors

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 disputethe 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 arejob 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 thatis 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 areTribunal 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 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 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.

Reasoning:
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 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 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.