Holding

The Tribunal’s award directing the regularisation of the eligible workmen must be upheld and the regularisation process should be completed expeditiously, in line with the objective of industrial law to ensure industrial peace and security of tenure.

Summary

The workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery, employed as civil engineering workers since the mine's takeover by Central Coalfields Ltd., claimed that they should be regularised as casual workers and eventually become permanent employees. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal directed that 74 of the 104 remaining workmen who could justify their claim be enlisted as casual workers and regularised after completing a year of attendance. The management and the labour union challenged the award, but the Jharkhand High Court, both at the Single Judge and Division Bench levels, upheld it. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal’s findings, emphasizing that industrial and labour legislation seeks to ensure peace, harmony, and security of tenure, and therefore the regularisation process must be completed expeditiously. The Court ordered the management to submit a report on regularisation within three months and directed that interim wage payments continue without recovery.

Issues considered

Whether the demand for regularisation of the 125 civil engineering workers is justified under industrial law.
Whether the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal directing regularisation of 74 workers should be upheld.
Whether the High Court's affirmation of the Tribunal's award can be interfered with by this Court.
What obligations, if any, does the management have to complete the regularisation process within a specific timeframe.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Subjects

industrial disputeregularisationcasual workersindustrial peacelabour lawCentral Coalfields Ltdtribunal awardsecurity of tenure

Judgment

\
'r

THE WORKMEN OF BHURKUNDA COLLIERY OF A
i .M/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.
' v.
THE MANAGEMENT OF BHURKUNDA COLLIERY OF
MIS CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.

JANUARY 27, 2006 B

[ARUN KUMAR AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.]

labour laws:
c
Regularization-Colliery taken-over by Central Coalflelds and its
workmen employed-Claim of workmen to be put on regular basis as casual
workers and regularized in course of time-Tribunal directing enlistment of
workers as casual workers who justified their claim in different jobs and be
regularised after fulfllling condition of attendance in a year-Petitions by D
workmen not granted relief and also by Management and labour Union-
Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court upholding the award- On
appeal held: Considering the philosophy of Industrial and labour
jurisprudence and applying the laws meant for industrial peace and harmony
order of tribunal calls for no interference-Employees working since 1973-
74, as such process ofregularization to be completed expeditiously-Industrial E
and labour jurisprudence.

Industrial and Labour laws-Object of enactment-Held: Is to ensure
peace and harmony between employers and employees in larger interest of
society.
F
Colliery B was taken-over by Central Coalfields Ltd (CCL) and 125
workmen employed therein were employed as Civil Engineering Workers.
Then·after, services of large number of workers employed in Colliery of CCL
who had completed 240 days of attendance were regularized in pursuance of
the directions of the management. Civil Engineering Workers claimed that G
they sho.uld be put on regular basis as casual labour and in course of time be
regularised but instead of regularizing their services, they were retrenched.
Industrial dispute was raised. Tribunal passed an award that the casual
workers of Colliery B were entitled to the same benefit of regularization as
given to those employed in Colliery of CCL. It directed to enlist 74 workers
851 H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12006) 1 S.C.R.

A as casual workers who justified their claim and be provided with different
jobs in category-I and be regularised after they fulfilled condition of attendance
in a year. 51 persons who were not granted any relief in the award filed writ
petition and also the Management and labour union. Both the Single Judge
and the Division Bench of High Court upheld the award. Hence, the present
appeals.
B
Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. There is no reason to interfere with the findings of fact arrived
at by the Tribunal and upheld by Single Judge and Division Bench of the High
Court. The process of regularization which has already been initiated must
C be completed as expeditiously as possible and the management is directed to
submit a report to this Court regarding regularization of the workmen.
(855-C, DI

2.1. The main object of enacting Industrial and Labour laws is to ensure
peace and harmony between the employers and the employees in the larger
D interest of the society. The industrial growth leading to economic prosperity
largely depends on happy and healthy relationship between employers and
employees. It is also our bounded duty to give expression to the legislative
intention for creating a healthy environment leading to proper understanding
and cooperation and in true sense a partnership between the employers and
E the employees in cases of industrial disputes. (856-A; 857-BI

2.2. Security of tenure is essential for an employee so that he can give
his best to the job. This object can be attained by regularization of the
employees within a reasonable period. In the matter of regularization, the main
concern of the Court is to see that the rule of law is respected and to ensure
F that the executive acts fairly and give a fair deal to its employees consistent
with the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. State being a
model employer should not exploit the employees nor take advantage of
helplessness and misery of either the unemployed person or the person
concerned, as the case may be. Where a temporary or adhoc appointment is
continued for long, the Court presumes that there is regular need for his
Ci services on a regular post and accordingly considers regularization.
(856-C, G, H; 857-AI

Hindustun Antibiotics ltd. v. Workmen, AIR (1967) SC 948; Culcut:a
l'orl Shramik Union v. Calcu//a R. T Association, AIR (1988) SC 2168; S.M
Nilujkar and Urs. v. Telecom Distt. Manager. Kamataka. 12003( 4 SCC 27
II and State of Harvana v. l'iara Singh. ( 19921 4 sec 118, relied on.
WORKMEN OF BHURKUNDA COLLIERY v. MANAG. OF BHURKUNDA COLLIERY [DAL VEER BHANDARI, I.] 853

3.1. The industrial jurisprudence, likewise, seeks to evolve a rational A
synthesis between the conflictirg scheme of the employers and employees. In
finding out solutions to industrial disputes great care is always taken, as it·
ought to be, to see that the settlement of industrial disputes does not go against
the interests of the community as a whole. In the decision of major industrial
disputes, three facts are thus involved. The interests of the employees which
have received constitutional guarantees under the Directive Principles, the B
interests of the employers which have received a guarantee under Article 19
and other Articles of Part III, and the interests of the community at large
which are so important in a Welfare State. It is on these lines that industrial
jurisprudence has developed during the last few decades in our country.
(858-F,G] C

3.2. When the thinking process and attitude is modulated according to
the underlying philosophy oflndustrial and Labour jurisprudence and apply
the laws meant for industrial peace and harmony, then the conclusion becomes
irresistible that the employees who have been working since 1973-74 required
to be regularized as expeditiously as possible. [858-H; 859-AJ D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1600 of2005.

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.1.2004 of the Jharkhand High
Court in L.P.A. Nos. 49 of2002 and 376 of2001.

P.S. Mishra, S.B. Upadhyay, R.R. Dubey, B.K. Mishra, Santosh Mishra, E
Tathagat Harshvardhan, Upendra Mishra, Shiv Mangat and Ms. Shalini for
the Appellant.
-<
' Ajit Kumar Sinha for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. The main concept of regularization oflndian
In_dustrial jurisprudence is the subject-matter of adjudication in these Civil
Appeals. We propose to dispose of both these appeals by this judgmeqt.

Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of these appeals are G _
recapitulated as under:

In these appeals, the award given by the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal has been upheld by the learned Single Judge and appeals against
the judgment of the learned Single Judge have been dismissed by the Division
Bench of the Jharkhand High Court. H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) 1 S.C.R.

A 125 workmen were in the employment of Bhurkunda Colliery in various
capacities since before its take-over by the Central Coalfields Ltd. (for short
'CCL'). After the take-over by the 'CCL', the concerned workmen were employed
as Mazdoors in certain engineering projects and were known as Civil
Engineering Workers. The concerned workmen claimed that such type of Civil
Engineering Workers should be put on regular basis as casual labour and in
B course of time they should be regularized.

The management of 'CCL' also issued a direct:on that such workmen
who have completed 240 days of attendance should be regularized. In fact,
a large number of workers employed in Gidi-A Colliery of 'CCL' were regularized
C on the basis of certain directions of the Headquarter of 'CCL'. Even in case
of Bhurkunda Colliery, 39 workers of the said type were also regularized.

The Labour union took up the matter of the concerned 125 Civil
Engineering Workers on the ground that the services of these workers should
be regularized. The union raised a demand that instead of regularizing the
D services of the workers, the management retrenched the concerned workmen .
.This gave rise to an industrial dispute. On persuasion of the union, with initial
resistance, ultimately, the Home Ministry of Government referred the dispute
to the Tribunal for adjudication.

·'Whether the demand raised by Koyla Mazdoor Sabha in regard
E to alleged discrimination in employment/regularization of 125 casual
workers ot Repair and Maintenance Section (Civil) of Bhurkunda
Colliery of Central Coalfields Limited is justified? If so, what relief
are these workmen entitled?"

The Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
F (No.2), Dhanbad in the Award dated 15th May, 1988 held that the dispute
raised by the Labour union on behalf of the concerned workmen was not stale
as the matter was being pursued by the union due to the stoppage of work
by the concerned workmen. It was admitted by the union that 21 workmen left
the services and consequently the number was reduced from 125 to I 04. The
G Tribunal held that the casual workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery also deserve the
same benefit which was given to the workmen ofGiddi-A Colliery and as such
their services also deserve to be regularized.

According to the Tribunal, on scrutiny, out of I04 casual workmen, only
74 of them in Repairs and Maintenance (Civil) Section ofBhurkunda Colliery
H of M/s 'CCL' could justify their claim. As such, the m<magement was directed
WORKMEN OF BHURKUNDA COLLIERY•·. MANAG. OF BHURKUNDA COLLIERY [DAL VEER BHANDARI, J.] 855

to enlist those 74 workers as casual workmen and be provided with different A
jobs in Category-I and they may be regularized after they have fulfilled the
condition of attendance in a year. The Award of the Tribunal was challenged.
The management filed C. W.J.C. No.1175of1989 and labour union filed C.W.J.C.
No. I083 of 1991 and Koy la Mazdoor Sabha on behalf of 51 persons, who were
not granted any relief in the award, also filed C.W.J.C. No.680 of 1999 and all
the three writ petitions were heard together by the learned Single Judge. The B
learned Single Judge, who heard these three writ petitions did not interfere
with the Award of the Tribunal. The Division Bench of the Jharkhand High
\
Court upheld the judgment of the Learned Single Judge and consequently as
directed by the Tribunal, cases of74 workmen were required to be considered
for regularization of their services after they have fulfilled the condition of C
attendance in a year.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the workmen and the
management at length. We see no reason to interfere with the findings of fact
arrived at by the Tribunal and affirmed by the learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench of the High Court. The process of regularization which has D
already been initiated must be completed as expeditiously as possible or in
any event, within two months from today.

In pursuance to the order of the High Court, the management has
deposited some amount towards the wages with the High Court and the
Registrar of the Jharkhand High Court has been disbursing Rs.500/- per E
month to some of the workmen. Learned counsel appearing for the management
has also filed a list of workmen who were being paid wages @ Rs.500/- per
month as per the order of the High Court out of the amount deposited in the
High Court by the management. The Registrar of the High Court shall continue
to pay Rs.500/- to these workmen till their respective claims are verified. We F
direct the Registrar of the High Court that their claims be verified as
expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of two months. In
the facts and circumstances of these cases, we direct that the amount already
paid to the workmen shall not be recovered and the Registrar of the High
Court is directed to ensure that the remaining balance amount after verification
of the claims be' refuuded to tlte management. G
To avoid any further litigation, we direct the management to submit a
• report to this Court regarding regularization of the workmen within three
months.

In the facts and circumstances it becomes imperative to issue direction H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] I S.C.R.

A regarding regularization. The main object of enacting Industrial and Labour
laws is to ensure peace and harmony between the employers and the employees
in the larger interest of the society. The industrial growth leading to economic
prosperity largely depends on happy and healthy relationship between
employers and employees.

B As early as in 1967, this Court in the case of Hindustan Antibiotics ltd
v. Workmen AIR ( 1967) SC 948 observed that the social 31,-J economic upliftment
of the labour is absolutely imperative for securing industrial peace.

Security of tenure is essential for an employee so that he can give his
C best to the job. This object can be attained by regularization of the employees
within a reasonable perioci.

In the case of Calcutta Port Shramik Union v. Calcutta R. T. Association,
AIR (1988) SC 2168, this Court observed that the object of enacting the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and of making provision therein to refer disputes
D to tribunals for settlement is to bring about industrial peace.

This Court in S.M. Nilajkar and Ors. v. Telecom Distt. Manager,
Karnataka, [2003] 4 SCC 27 was of the opinion that the labour iaws being
beneficial pieces of legislation are to be interpreted in favour of beneficiaries.
According to the Court, in case of doubt or where it is possible to take two
E views of a provision, the benefit must go to the labour.

This Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh. ( 1992] 4 SCC 118 held
that so far as the work-charged employees and casual labour are concerned,
the effort must be to regularize them as far as possible and as early as
possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the
F post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is continued
for a fairly long spell-say two or three years - a presumption may arise that
there is regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory
for the authority concerned to examine the feasibility of his regularization.
While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled
G with an empathy for the person.

In the matter of regulariza:ior, the main concern of the Court is to see
that the rule of law is respected and to ensure that the executive acts fairly
and give a faiJ deal to its employees consistent with the requirement of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The State being a model
H employer should not exploit the employees nor take advantage of helplessness
WORKMEN OF BHURKUNDA COLLIERY ... MANAG. OF BHURKU~DA COLLIERY [DALVEER RHANOARL J J 857

and misery of either the unemployed person or the person concerned, as the A
case may be.

Where a temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for long, the
Court presumes that there is regular need for his services on a regular post
and accordingly considers regularization.
B
It is also our bounded duty to give expression to the legislative intention
for creating a healthy environment leading to proper understanding and
\
cooperation and in true sense a partnership between the employers and the
employees in cases of industrial disputes.

The report of the National Commission of Labour published by Ministry C
of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation in 1969 has dealt with the aspect
of industrial peace and harmony. It will be appropriate to recapitulate some
aspects of that report:

According to the philosophy of the First Five Year Plan, peace in
industry has a great signiflcance as a force for world peace if we consider the D
wider implications of the question. The answer to class-antagonisms and
world conflicts will arrive soon if we succeed in discovering a sound basis
for human relations in industry. Economic progress is also bound up with
industrial peace. Industrial relations are, therefore, not a matter between
employers and employees alone, but a vital concern of the community which E
may be expressed in measures for the protection of its larger interests.

A quest for industrial harmony is indispensable when a country plans
to make economic progress. It may sound platitudinou~ but it is nevertheless
true that no nation can hope to survive in the modern technological age,
much less become strong, great and prosperous, unless it is wedded to F
industrial development and technological advance. Economic progress is bound
up with industrial harmony for the simple reason that industrial harmony
inevitably leads to more cooperation between employers and employees,
which results in more productivity and thereby contributes to all-round
prosperity of the countrv. Healthy industrial relations, on which industrial G
hannony is founded, cannot therefore be regarded as a matter in which only
the employers and employees are concerned; it is of vital significance to the
community as a whole. That is how the concept of industrial harmony involves
the cooperation not only of the employers and the employees, but also of the
community at large. This cooperation stipulates that employees and employers
recognise that though they are fully justified in safeguarding their respective H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200611 S.C.R.

A rights and interests, they must also bear in mind the interests of the community.
In other words, both employers and employees should recognise that as
citizens they ought not to forget the interests of the community. If this be the
true scope of the concept of industrial harmony, it follows that industrial
harmony should and ought to emphasise thr importance of raising productivity,
because the resulting accelerated rate of growth will lead to the good of the
B community as a whole. That, we consider, is the true significance of the
doctrine of industrial harmony i'l its three-dimensional aspect.

It is plain that in order to create a proper climate for industrial harmony
and to cultivate proper attitudes in the minds of the employees and the
C employers alike, it is essential that employees must be well organized and
trade unionism must become strong. Employers must be progressive and must
recognize whole-heartedly the validity of the doctrine that the} and their
employers are partners in the adventure of the growth of the industrial life
of the country. The history of the trade union movement in the world shows
that healthy and proper attitudes are not easily born and the trade union
D movement does not become strong without resistance from the employers,
and such resistance leads to a long and bitter strife. t)uest for industrial
harmony has thus been sometimes stalled or delayed or'. . .istrated by struggles
between the employers and the employees.

The growth of industrial jurisprudence in India, subsequent to 1950,
E bears close resemblance to the growth of Constitutional Law in relation to the
fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens.

The industrial jurisprudence, likewise, seeks to evolve a rational
synthesis between the conflicting scheme of the employers and employees.
In finding out solutions to industrial disputes great care is always taken, as
F it ought to be, to see that the settlement of industrial disputes does not go
against the interests of the community as a whole. In the decision of major
industrial disputes, three facts are thus involved. The intere~ts of the employees
which have received constitutional guarantees under the Directive Principles,
the interests of the employers which have received a guarantee under Article
G 19 and other Articles of Part Ill, and the interests of the community at large
which are so important in a Welfare State. It is on these lines that industrial
jurisprudence has developed during the last few decades in our country.

When we modulate our thinking process and attitude according to the
underlying philosophy of Industrial and Labour jurisprudence and apply the
H laws meant for industrial peace and hannony, then the conclusion becomes
' ,_
WORKMEN OF BHURKUNDA COLLIERY"· MANAG. OF BHURKUNDA COLLIERY [DAL VEER BHANDARI. J.J 859
'\ irresistible that the employees who have been working since 1973-74 required A
to be regularized as expeditiously as possible.

Both employers and employees have their respective obligations. They
must have the appreciation of each others's responsibilities, duties and
obligations. The Trade Union and. Labour Union should understand and
appreciate the fact that Labour is not a commodity nor is it a mere supply of B
Labour force at the management's disposal. Essentially, Labour is the real
\ basis that underlines the production of goods and services. Through the
work should the human personality and its sense of responsibility be able to
unfold, management should appreciate this and always attribute its success
to the trained and effective labour force. It must be understood by all concerns C
that both the employees and employers are vital for any industry and unless
there is proper coordination, a smooth functioning of any Industry would be
difficult.

On the basis of the aforementioned observations, these appeals are
disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of these cases, we direct the D
parties to bear their respective costs.

N.J. Appeals disposed of.