Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 03-10-2016 in case of petitioner name Workmen Rashtriya Colliery Maz vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Anot
| |

Industrial Dispute Settlement: Supreme Court Orders Compensation for Coal Mine Workers

Updated on

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Workmen Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Another, delivered a judgment on October 3, 2016, addressing the rights of workmen seeking regularization in employment. The case involved a long-standing industrial dispute where the workmen had been fighting for their right to be regularized as permanent employees of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (BCCL).

The Supreme Court ruled that instead of reinstating the workmen, the company must pay compensation to each affected workman. The judgment underscores the challenges faced by contract workers in securing permanent employment and the role of judicial intervention in resolving prolonged labor disputes.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose when 20 workmen, represented by the Workmen Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, sought regularization of their employment at Balihari Colliery under BCCL. The case dates back to 1993 when the matter was first referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) at Dhanbad under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The specific reference was:

“Whether the demand of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh for regularization of the workmen on the roll of Balihari Colliery of M/s BCCL Ltd., and payment to them of wages as per N.C.W.A. is justified? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled?”

The CGIT, in its award dated September 9, 1996, ruled in favor of the workmen, directing BCCL to regularize them as permanent employees under Category I as per the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA). However, no back wages were granted.

Subsequent Developments

Over the years, multiple legal battles ensued:

  • In 1994, another reference involving 76 workmen led to a CGIT award in 2000 directing BCCL to regularize 73 of them. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2009.
  • In contrast, the High Court of Jharkhand, in 2004, modified the award in the present case, stating that the workmen would be given preference in employment when BCCL hired regular workmen.
  • No appeal was filed against the High Court’s 2004 order, unlike the 1994 reference case where workmen obtained reinstatement through the Supreme Court.
  • In 2011, the workmen submitted a representation seeking employment under the 2004 order, which was rejected.
  • They then filed a writ petition under Article 226, which was dismissed by the Single Judge in 2012.
  • The Division Bench upheld the dismissal in a Letters Patent Appeal in July 2012.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners’ (Workmen’s) Arguments

  • The workmen had been engaged between 1987 and 1989 and were never given the status of regular employees.
  • The High Court’s 2004 order effectively denied them meaningful relief as no fresh recruitment took place.
  • They had been treated unfairly compared to the 73 workmen in the 1994 reference case, who were regularized.
  • The delay in implementing the award left them without any effective remedy.

Respondents’ (BCCL’s) Arguments

  • The workmen approached the courts too late, waiting until 2011 to seek implementation of the 2004 order.
  • BCCL had been financially constrained and was a sick company under BIFR, unable to undertake regular recruitment.
  • Since the High Court had modified the award to only give preference in employment, there was no enforceable right to reinstatement.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court acknowledged the predicament of the workmen, noting that:

  • The workmen had been engaged over 27 years ago, and most of them were nearing the retirement age.
  • Since they never challenged the 2004 High Court order, they could not now seek reinstatement.
  • Their prolonged unemployment due to the lack of implementation of the tribunal’s award warranted relief.

Instead of reinstatement, the Court ordered compensation of ₹2 lakh per workman in full and final settlement of all claims. The company was directed to deposit the amount with the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) at Dhanbad within two months, and the Tribunal was instructed to disburse the amount after verifying the workmen’s identities.

Legal Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court referred to past judgments emphasizing that:

  • Industrial disputes should be resolved in a manner that balances employer viability and worker rights.
  • Delays in filing claims weaken the legal standing of petitioners.
  • Alternative remedies like compensation can be granted where reinstatement is impractical.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has several implications:

  • Recognition of Delayed Justice: The Court acknowledged that long delays in industrial disputes can leave workers without effective remedies.
  • Alternative Relief Mechanism: The judgment reinforces that compensation can be a practical remedy where reinstatement is no longer viable.
  • Balance Between Employer and Employee Interests: The decision considers both the workmen’s need for relief and BCCL’s financial constraints.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Workmen Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. highlights the challenges faced by contract workers in obtaining regularization. By granting compensation instead of reinstatement, the Court balanced worker welfare with economic realities.

While the judgment brings finality to the dispute, it also underscores the need for timely enforcement of labor rights. The ruling serves as an important precedent for resolving industrial disputes where prolonged litigation makes reinstatement impractical.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Workmen Rashtriya Co vs Bharat Coking Coal L Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 03-10-2016.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by T.S. Thakur
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2016
See all petitions in 2016 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category

Similar Posts