WORKMEN RASTRIYA COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH  versus BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. & ANR.
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 736, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[2016}9 S.C.R. 736 
-
,- : : , . -. 
A 
WORKMEN RASTRIYA COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH 
B 
. ' 
v . 
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. & ANR. 
, (I.A No. 2 of2016) 
IN 
(Civil Appeal No. 13953 of2015) 
OCTOBER 03, 2016 
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI, A.M. KIIANWILKAR AND 
C 
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
Industrial Disptttes Act, 1947 - s.JO(l)(d) -Award of 
Industrial Tribunal directing regularization of workmen - Modified 
by High Court, directing that preference be given to the workmen 
in questio11. when regular workmen are employed - No appeal filed 
D against judgment of High Court - Years later, the workmen in 
question initiated a second round of litigation - Held: Relief of 
reinstatement cannot be given to the workmen in question, since 
such relief was denied in the judgment of High Cottrt which was 
not challenged - Distinction from case of another set of workmen, 
E where the award passed by the Tribunal for reinstatement was 
modified by the High Court but the High Court judgment was set 
aside by Supreme Court in appeal and the award of Tribunal was 
~ 
restored- However, in order to render full, final and complete justice 
in the instant case, respondents directed to deposit an amount of 
Rs.2 /akhs as compensation lo each workman in question. 
F 
On a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the 
Tribunal had delivered an award in 1996 directing regularization of the 
workmen in.question. The High Court, however, modified the award in 
2004 directing that .as and when regular
workmen are employed, 
preference be given to the workmen in question. No appeal was filed 
G againstthejudgment of High Court. In 2011, the workmen in question 
initiated a second round of litigation before the High Court in writ 
proceedings which were dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
736
WORKMEN RASTRIYA COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH v. 
BHARATCOKING COAL LTD. & ANR. 
HELD: 1. The facts indicate 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 
whereby the management was only required in case it intended 
to employ regular workmen, to give preference to the workmen 
in question. This 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 another reference concerning a separate set of workmen. 
In their case, the Award of the Industrial Tribunal was modified 
by a Division Bench of the High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal. 
The judgment of the Division Bench was challenged before this 
Court by the Union as a result of which 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 was never challenged. [Para 6)(740-
D-G) 
2. There is no occasion at present to grant them 
reinstatement in any event, such relief having been denied in the 
judgment of the High Court dated 18 May 2004 which was not 
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 
had faced attrition in numbers and were left with no practical relief. 
This situation should be remedied, to tJ1e extent permissible in 
law, having regard to the above background. In order to render 
full, final and complete justice, an order for the payment of 
compensation iii final settlement of all the claims, dues and 
outstandings payable to the workmen in question would meet 
the ends of justice. The Respondents shall deposit an amount of 
Rs. Two lakhs each towards compensation payable to each one 
of the 14 workmen in question. [Paras 7, 8) [741-A-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I. A. No. 2 of 2016 in 
Civil Appeal No. 13953 of2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2012 of the High Court 
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in L. P.A. No. 203 of2012. 
S. K. Sinha, Adv. for the Appellant. 
737 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
738 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 9 S.C.R. 
Anupam Lal Das, Anirudh Singh, Sahil Monga, Advs. for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACIIUD, J. I. 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 I 0( l )( d) of the 
Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7 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 ofRashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh 
for regularization of the workmen on the role of Balihari 
Colliery ofM/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 204of1994, under Section I 0( I)( d) 
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of76 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 of76 workmen. The management challenged 
the Award in writ proceedings before the High Court (CWJC 3824 of 
2000). The High Court by a judgment dated 26 July 200 I dismissed the 
writ petition. In a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA 543 of2001 ), a Division
WORKMEN RASTRIYA COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH v.· 
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.] 
Bench of the High Court by a judgment dated I 0 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 ofage and eligibility. The 
judgment of the High Court was challenged before this Court in Civil 
Appeal No. 3962 of2006 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 1654of1997. The Award was modified in the 
following terms:-
" ... the impugned awards are modified to the extent that as 
and when Mis. 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 atthe 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
representation was submitted on behalf of the work.men 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 Article226. 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. 
739 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
740 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
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 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 ofrecruitment 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 ofBCCL 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 204of1994. In that case, the Award of 
the 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 £hallenged. 
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 -- -
WORKMEN RASTRIYA COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH v. 
741 
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.(DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.J 
any relief or remedy in practical temis .. The workmen -:vere engaged 
between 1987 and 1989. Nearly 27 years have elapsed sin~ethen. 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 i 8 May 2004 \vhich has not been challenged. 
However, the predicament of the workmen is real. Two sets of workmen 
in the same coEiery µpqe..r !he Sflme_ comp(lnY;~.a~rl~c.~ivt;d unequal 
treatment. The present group of workmen has faced attntton m numbers 
and has been left with no practical relief. This siiuation should be 
remedied, to the extent that is now pennissible 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 payab[e to the i 4 
workmen in question would meet the ends of justice: 
' 
. 8. We. accordingiy direct that the Respondents shall deposiiw.iih 
the Central Government Tribunal (No.2) at Ohan bad an amou.nt.of Rs. 
Two lakhs 'each towards conipensaiion payable to each one of the.' i.4 
workmen. This ar~ount shall be in full and final satisfaction of all the 
claims, demaflds and outstandings. Upon deposit of the amount,
the;\~itrd 
of the Industrial Tribunal dated 9 September 1996, as modifi~d by th~ 
High Court on 18 May _2004 shall· be marke.d assaffsfied, .The 
Respondents shall deposit the amount as directed hereinabove; within a 
perioo of two months from today before the Central Government Industrial 
Tribunal (No.2) Dhai1bad in Reference 26of1993. The amount shall b~ 
disbursed to the workmen concerned subject to due verification of identity 
by the Ilidustrial Tribunal. · 
· 
· 
· · · 
9. The Civil Appeal shall stand allowed in the aboye terms. There 
shall be no order as to costs. · • 
' '" · • · 
' · ... · · · · .... 
i - ' 
•. -.1 
t ·; ' 
D1vYa Pandey 
. 
. .. ·:·-·· 
. , 
--~~P~a:r allowed. 
·:. "-........ 
~~:::-'-
~ 
: 
·-~ ,;,. -
i''-
. 
•:i. •• 
: 
: 
. . 
._ l',,. 
. ·. 
~ : 
. I . , . 
;; 
...• : 'i -·~-' -_, 
- ) 
, .. 
, . ' 
., . 
.. ,_ 
.· • ·. 
; o'. : 
i .-
-, .. ' 
- _ .. ~ 
' .... 
.. 
~-- -· ·.:_ 
' 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
i 
i 
~- -