Holding

Reinstatement cannot be granted as the High Court's modification was unchallenged, but the workmen are entitled to compensation of Rs. 2 lakh each to render full and final justice.

Summary

The Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, representing 14 workmen of BCCL's Balihari Colliery, obtained a 1996 Industrial Tribunal award directing their regularisation without back wages. The Jharkhand High Court in 2004 modified the award, stipulating that the employer must give preference to these workmen when hiring regular staff, subject to relaxed age and eligibility criteria. No appeal was filed against this modification, and the workmen later filed writ proceedings in 2011 seeking enforcement, which were dismissed. The Supreme Court held that reinstatement could not be ordered because the High Court's modification had not been challenged, but to achieve complete justice, it directed the employer to pay compensation of Rs. 2 lakh to each of the 14 workmen. The appeal was allowed and the compensation order was issued.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court can grant reinstatement when the High Court's modification of the Industrial Tribunal award was not appealed.
Whether compensation can be ordered in lieu of reinstatement to satisfy the workmen's claims.
Whether the modified award is deemed satisfied by the payment of compensation.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 10(1)(d)

Subjects

Industrial Disputes Actaward modificationreinstatementcompensationtrade unionregularisationhigh court judgmentSupreme Court relief

Judgment

[2016}9 S.C.R. 736
- ,- : : , . -.

A WORKMEN RASTRIYA COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH

. ' v.
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. & ANR.
, (I.A No. 2 of2016)
B 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. 737
BHARATCOKING COAL LTD. & ANR.

HELD: 1. The facts indicate that the Award of the Industrial A
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
B
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. c
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)
D

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 E
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 F
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]
G
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. H
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 9 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
c 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
D 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
E 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
F
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
G
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
H
WORKMEN RASTRIYA COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH v.· 739
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Bench of the High Court by a judgment dated I 0 March 2003 modified A
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
B
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 c
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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.
H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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
c 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.
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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 -- -
H
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 A
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.
B
However, the predicament ofthe workmen is real. Two sets of workmen
in the same coEiery µpqe..r !he Sflme_ comp(lnY;~.a~rl~c.~ivt;d unequal i
treatment. The present group ofworkmen 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; c
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 ofjustice: ' i
~- -
. 8. We. accordingiy direct that the Respondents shall deposiiw.iih
the Central Government Tribunal (No.2) at Ohan bad an amou.nt.of Rs. D
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 ofthe 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 E
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 F
shall be no order as to costs. · • ' '" · • · ' · ... · · · · ....
i -' •. -.1 t ·; '
.·:.,--~~P~a:r
D1vYa Pandey
. .
. . ·:·-··
allowed.
"- ........
~~:::-'- ~

:·-~ ,;,. -

..
i''- . •:i. •• : :

._ l',,.

. ·. ~ : .I .,. ;; . . . • : 'i -·~-' -_, - )
, ...,, .. ' .. ,_ .· • ·. ; o'. : i .-

-, .. ' ..
-_ ~
' ....
.. ~-- -· ·.:_ '