Holding

The amendment to Section 14 does not affect the vested right of workmen who were employees on the appointed date, and the tribunal's award of reinstatement is valid.

Summary

Four workmen alleged that they were employed at Ramkanali Colliery before the coal mines were nationalised on 1 May 1973 and that they were unlawfully stopped from work. The management contended that the workmen were not employees on the appointed date and that the amendment substituting Section 14 of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1973 (effective 15 December 1986) removed any protection, rendering the tribunal award of reinstatement void. The Industrial Tribunal, after examining evidence, held that the workmen were indeed employees at the time of takeover and ordered their reinstatement with continuity of service. The High Court set aside the award, but the Division Bench restored it, leading to the present appeal. The Supreme Court held that the amendment does not affect vested rights of employees who were in service on the appointed date, that the tribunal's factual finding cannot be faulted, and therefore the award stands, dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

The effect of the amendment/substitution of Section 14 of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1973 on vested employment rights of workmen who were employees on the appointed date.
Whether the Industrial Tribunal could validly award reinstatement in 1987 despite the amended provision.
Whether the workmen had ceased to be employees or were merely prevented from working.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Coal Mines Nationalisation ActSection 14vested rightsamendmentsubstitutionindustrial disputereinstatementtribunal awardretrospective legislationemployment protection

Judgment

~

~
EMP., MGMf OF RAMKANALI COLLIERY OF MIS. BCCL A
v.
WORKMEN BY SECY. RASHf. COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH
ANDANR.

MARCH 27, 2001
B
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.]

Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1973 : Section 14.

Coal Mines-Nationalisation of-Workmen stopped from working by
management-Management contended that the workmen were not in employ- c
ment before takeover-Industrial Tribunal held that the workmen were work-
men at the lime of takeover and should be allowed to resume their duties-
Cormctness of-Held: Tribunal found that the workmen in question have not
ceased to be employees, but were not allowed to do work-Such finding offact
cannot be faulted with aJ all-Hence, no interference called for-Labour Laws. D
The respondent-workmen raised a dispute before the Industrial Tri-
bunal that they were stopped from work in the Colliery of the appellant-
management. The appellant contended before the Tribunal that the non-
coking coal mines were taken over by the Central Government and was
nationalised and none of the respondent-workmen were in employment E
before the date of takeover. The Tribunal held that the concerned work-
men were workmen of the Colliery at the time of takeover and they should
be allowed to resume duty from the date of takeover. The High Court
dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Hence this appeal.
F
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that under Set:tion 14 of
-Jr the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1973 a workman who was in the
employment on the appointed date, namely 1.5.1973 alone was entitled to
be protected in employment; that on the date when the reference was made
to the Tribunal, provision of Section 14 of the Act stood substituted with
retrospective effect from 1.5.1973 and, therefore, the Tribunal could not G
have passed the award in 1987.

Dismissing the appeal, the Conrt

HELD : 1. H there is both repeal and introduction of another provi-
sion in place thereof by a single exercise, the expression "substituted'' is H
847
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.
A used. Such deletion has the effect of the repeal of the existing provision and
also provide for introduction of new provision. There is thus no real
distinction between repeal and amendment or substitution in such cases. H
that aspect is borne in mind, the usual principles of finding out the rights
of the parties flowing from an amendment of a provision have to be
applied. H there is a vested right and that right i~ to be taken away,
B
. necessarily the law will have to be retrospective in effect and if such a law
retrospectively takes away such a right, it can 10 longer be contended that
the right should be enforced. However, that I !gal position, in the present
case, does not affect the rights of the parties: s such. [852-F-G]

C Workmen v. Bharat Coking Coal Ud., [l 978] 2 SCC 175 and Bhagat
Ram Sharma v. Union of India, [1988] Supp. S :c 30, relied on.

Bhubaneshwar Singh v. Union of India, [ .994] 6 SCC 77, held inappli·
cable.

D 2. The Coal Mines Nationalisation A ~t, 1973 came into force on
1.5.1973 and the employees (including forn er employees whose services
were terminated) will continue to hold such !mployment as iC nationalisa·
tion bad not taken place. In the present case ·the finding of the Tribunal is
that the employees in question had not cea ed to be employees but were
E merely not allowed to do work. This finding af fact arrived at on apprecia· ·~
lion of evidence, cannotbe faulted with at a· 1; Hence, the right enforced by
the employees will not attract the amende l provision of the Act, which
came into force on 15.12.1986. [852-H; 853 A]

CIVIi, APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5797 of 1998.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated i.4.98 of. the Patna High Court
in L.P.A. No. 125 of 1989 (R).

WIIB

G Civil Appeal No. 7596 of 1999.

Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, !tjit Knmar Sinha and S.C. Malik
for the Appellant.

S.B. Upadhyay, Ms. Shweta Verma, .Ms. Santosh Misra, Tathagat H.
H Vardhan and Sujit Knmar for the Respondents.

I
EMP~ MGMT. OF RAMKANALI COLLIERY OF BCCL v. WORKMEN BY SECY. RAS HT. COLLIERY
MAZDOOR SANGH (RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 849
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A

RAJENDRA BABU, J. C.A.No. 5797/1998

Four workmen, who claimed to be working from May or July 1972 in
the Ramkanali Colliery of the appellant, raised a dispute that they were
stopped from work by the management. The appellant contended before the B
Industrial Tribunal to whom this matter was referred that the non-coking coal
mines were taken over by the Central Government on 31.1.1973 and was
nationalized with effect from 1.5.1973 and none of these workmen were in
employment before the date of take over. After the take over of the Colliery,
a Screening Committee consisting of the representatives of the employer and C
the workmen scrutinized the claim of the workmen and found that the claim
of these workmen was without any basis.

> The reference made to the Industrial Tribunal reads as follows :

"Wheiher the demand of the workmen of Ramkanali Colliery of D
Messrs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Post Office Katrasgarh, District
Dhanbad that Sarvashri Bishundeo Singh, Kanhaiya Prasad Karan,
Attendance Clerks, Ashok Kumar Das, Munshi and Bachu Singh,
Night Guard of West Ramkanali Section should be allowed to resume
duty is justified? If so, to what relief are the workmen concerned
· entitled and from what date?" E

The Tribunal examined the matter in detail and on consideration of
evidence held that the concerned four workmen were workmen of the
· Ramkanali Colliery at the time of take over and they should be allowed to
resume duty from the date of take over. Thereby the management ?f the F
appellant was directed to reinstate the said workmen with continuity of
service from the respective dates of stoppage of their duties. However, the
Tribunal made cenain adjusttnents regarding payment of wages for the period
for which they had not worked. The matter was carried by way of a writ
petition to the High Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition
and set aside the award and the matter was carried by the workmen in letters G
patent appeal to the Division Bench which allowed the same and restored the
award made by the Tribunal. Hence this appeal by special leave.

The contention put forth before us is that under Section 14 of the Coal
· Mines Nationalisation Ac~ 1973 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] a H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] 2 S.C.R.
A workman who was in the employment on the appointed date, namely,
1.5.1973 alone is entitled to be protected in employment. On the date when
the reference was made to the Tribunal, provision of Section 14 of the Act
stood substituted with retrospective effect from 1.5.1973 and, therefore, the
Tribunal could not have passed the award in the year 1987.

B In the Workmen v. the Bharat Coking Coal l.Jd. & Ors., (1978] 2 SCC
175, this Court examined the scope and effect of the provisions of Sections
9 and 17 of the Coking Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1972, which are
identical to Sections 7 and 14 of the Act in all respects. This Court held that
Section 9 (similar to Section 7 of the Act) granted immunity to the Govem-
C ment against any award and it has to be read along with Section 17(1) (similar
to Section 14(1) of the Act). So read, Section 9 does not nullify Section 17
or have a larger operation. In very felicitous terms, this Court stated the
position as under:

"7. Section 9 deals with the topic of prior liabilities of the previous
D owner. Section 9(1) speaks of "every liability of the owner ...... prior
to the appointed day, shall be the liability of such owner ....... and shall
be enforceable against him and not against the Central Government
or the Government Company". The inference is irresistible that
Section 9(1) has nothing to do with wrongful dismissals and awards
E for reinstatement. Employees are not a liability (as yet in our country).
Section 9(1) deals with pecuniary and other liabilities and has nothing
to do with workmen. If at all it bas anything to do with workmen it
is regarding arrears of wages or other contractual, statutory or tortious
liabilities. Section 9(2) operates only in the area of Section 9(1) and
that is why it starts off by saying "for the removal of doubts it is
F
hereby declared ....... ". So, Section 9(2) seeks only to remove doubts
in the area covered by Section 9(1) and does not deal with any other "-·
topic or subject matter. Section 9(2)(b) when it refers to 'awards' goes
along with the words 'decree' or 'order'. By the canon of construc-
1

tion of noscitur a sociis with expression 'award' must have a
G restricted meaning. Moreover, its scope if delimited by Section 9(1).
If back wages "':fore the appointed day have been awarded or other
sums, accrued prior to nationalisation, have been directed to be paid
to any workman by the new owner, Section 9(2)(b) makes such claims
non-enforceable. We do not see any reason to hold that Section
H 9(2)(b) nullifies Section 17(1) or has a larger operation than Section
EMP., MGMT. OF RAMKANALI COLLIERY OF BCCL w. WORKMEN BY SECY. RAS HT. COLLIERY
MAZDOOR SANGH [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 851
9(1). We are clear that the whole provision confers immunity against A
liability, not a right to jettison workmen under the employ of the
previous owner in the eye of Jaw."

Now the contention put forth before us is that Section 14 of the Act
stood substituted by an amendment made to it by deleting several provisions
thereof. Section 14( 1) of the Act provided as follows : B

"14. Employment of certain employees to continue -

(1) Every person who is a workmen within the meaning of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and has been immediately before the
appointed date, an employee of the Central Government, in which the c
right, title and interest of such mine have vested under this Act, and
shall hold office or service in the coal mine with the same rights
would have been admissible to him if the rights in relation to such
)
coal mine had not been transferred to, and vested in, the Central
Government or the Govennnent Company, as the case may be, and D
continue to do so unless and until his employment in such Coal Mine
is duly terminated or until his remuneration, terms and conditions of
employment are duly altered by the Central Government or the
Government Company."
....
Cf (Rest of the provisions not extracted since unnecessary) E

The said provision stood deleted and substituted by the following
provision:

"14. Liability of officeror other employee of a coal mine for transfer
to any other coal mine. Notwithstanding anything contained in the F
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or in any other Jaw for the time being
in force, the services of any officer or other employee employed in
a coal mine shall be liable to be transferred to any compensation under
this Act or any other Jaw for the time being in force and no such claim
shall be entertained by any court, tribunal or other authority." G
The argument advanced now is that protection available under Section
14 is no longer available on the date when the award was made and, therefore,
~ contended that the award is a nullity. The decision in Blzubaneshwar Singh
& Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., [1994] 6 SCC 77, is in the context of
enactment of Jaw reviewing the defect pointed out in a judgment and H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) 2 S.C.R.
A retrospectively enacting the law so as to render the judgment of the court
ineffective thus enacting a validating provision was considered. What hap-
pened in that case was courts took the view that the sale price of the stock
of extracted coal lying at the commencement of the appointed date had to
be taken into account for determining the profit and loss during the period
of management of the mine by Central Government. Thereafter, the Coal
B
Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Ordinance and Act, 1986 was
issued. Section 19(2) of the Principal Act as introduced by the Amending Act
and Section 19 of the Amending Act providing that the amount payable as
compensation shall be deemed to include and deemed always to have
included in the amount required to be paid to the owner in respect of all coal
c in stock on the date immediately before the appointed date. The said
Amending Act was held to be valid as it altered the basis of the principal
Act with retrospective effect as a result of which court judgment was rendered
ineffective and, therefore, this Court upheld the said provision. That decision
can have no application to the present case nor are we concerned with the
validity of the provisions of the enactment in question. What we are con-
D
cerned in the present case is the effect of the expression "substituted" used
in the context of deletion of sub-clauses of Section 14, as was original
enacted. In Bhagat Ram Sharma v. Union of India & Ors., [1988] Supp. SCC
30, this Court stated that it is a matter of legislative practice to provide while
enacting an amending Jaw, that an existing provision shall be deleted and a
E new provision substituted. If there is both repeal and introduction of another
provision in place thereof by a single exercise, the expression "substituted"
is used. Such deletion has the effect of the repeal of the existing provision
and also provide for introduction of new provision. In our view there is thus
no real distinction between repeal and amendment or substitution in such
F cases. If that aspect is borne, in mind, wc have to apply the usual principles
of finding out the rights of the parties flowing from an amendment of a
provision. If there is a vested right and that right is to be taken away,
necessarily the law will have to be retrospective in effect and if such a law
retrospectively takes away such a right, it can no longer be contended that
the right should be enforced. However, that legal position, in the present case,
G does not affect the rights of the parties as such.

The Act came into force on 1.5.1973 and the employees (including
former employees whose services were terminated) will continue to hold such \..
employment as if nationalisation had not taken place. In the present case, the
H finding of the Tribunal is that the employees in question had not ceased to
EMP., MGMT. OF RAMKANALI COLLIERY OF BCCL .._ WORKMEN BY SECY. RAS HT. COLLIERY
MAZDOOR SANGH [RAJENORA BABU, J.J 853
be employees but were merely not allowed to do work. This finding of fact A
arrived at on appreciation of evidence, cannot be faulted with at all. Hence,
the right enforced by the employees will not attract the amended provision
of the Act which came into force on 15.12.1986.

In that view of the matter, we do not think that the award made by the
Tribunal is in any way wrong particularly, when the decision has been given B
on facts that as on the date of the take over the concerned workmen were
employees of the appellant management. If that is so, they never ceased to
be employees. All that happened was they were prevented from working in
the Colliery, which was set right by the award. We find no substance in this
appeal. The same shall, therefore, stand dismissed. No costs. C
C.A.No. 7596/99

The questions arising for consideration being identical this appeal is
) also dismissed.

V.S.S. Appeals dismissed. D