http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 1600 of 2005

PETITIONER:

The Workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd.

RESPONDENT:

The Management of Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/01/2006

BENCH:

Arun Kumar & Dalveer Bhandari

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1601 OF 2005

Employers in relation to the

Management of Bhurkunda Colliery

of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi .... Appellant

Versus

Their Workmen represented by the

General Secretary, Koyla Mazdoor Sabha,

Bhurkunda Bazar, Ranchi ....Respondent

Dalveer Bhandari, J

The main concept of regularization of Indian Industrial

jurisprudence is the subject-matter of adjudication in these

Civil Appeals. We propose to dispose of both these appeals by

this judgment.

Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of these

appeals are 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.

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 course of time they

should be regularized.

The management of 'CCL' also issued a direction 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 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5

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 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 to alleged

discrimination in

employment/regularization of 125 casual

workers of 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 (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 104. The Tribunal held that

the casual workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery also deserve the

same benefit which was given to the workmen of Giddi-A

Colliery and as such their services also deserve to be

regularized.

According to the Tribunal, on scrutiny, out of 104 casual

workmen, only 74 of them in Repairs and Maintenance (Civil)

Section of Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s 'CCL' could justify their

claim. As such, the management was directed to enlist those

74 workers as casual workmen and be provided with different

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.1175 of 1989 and labour union filed C.W.J.C. No.1083 of

1991 and Koyla 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 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 of 74 workmen were required to be considered for

regularization of their services after they have fulfilled the

condition of 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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5

Court has been disbursing Rs.500/- per 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

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 refunded to the management.

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 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.

As early as in 1967, this Court in the case of Hindustan

Antibiotics Ltd. v. Workmen (AIR 1967 SC 948) observed that

the social and 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 best to the job. This object can be attained by

regularization of the employees within a reasonable period.

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 to tribunals for

settlement is to bring about industrial peace.

This Court in S.M. Nilajkar and Others v. Telecom Distt.

Manager, Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 27 was of the opinion that

the labour laws 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 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 post

and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is

continued for a fairly long spell \026 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 with an empathy for the person.

In the matter of regularization, the main concern of the

Court is to see that the rule of law is respected and to ensure

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5

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 of India. The 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 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.

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 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 significance as a force for world

peace if we consider the 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 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

platitudinous 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

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 country. Healthy industrial relations, on

which industrial harmony 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 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 the importance of raising productivity, because the

resulting accelerated rate of growth will lead to the good of the

community as a whole. That, we consider, is the true

significance of the doctrine of industrial harmony in its three-

dimensional aspect.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5

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 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 they 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

movement does not become strong without resistance from the

employers, and such resistance leads to a long and bitter

strife. Quest for industrial harmony has thus been sometimes

stalled or delayed or frustrated by struggles between the

employers and the employees.

The growth of industrial jurisprudence in India,

subsequent to 1950, 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 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

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.

When we modulate our thinking process and attitude

according to the underlying philosophy of Industrial 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.

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 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 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 parties to bear their respective

costs.