Judgment:
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal by the appellant-Workmen is directed against the judgment dated 4.9.2007 passed in W.P. (L) No. 1851 of 2006 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ application filed by the respondent-Management and set aside the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 64 of 1995. By the said award, the Tribunal held that the concerned workmen were entitled for regularization and, accordingly, directed the Management to reinstate 81 workmen in service.
2. It appears from the impugned judgment that the following dispute was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication:
Whether the demand of the Union for regularization/employment by the management of Bhalgora Area of M/s. B.C.C.L. of Sh. Rama Ashish Paswan and 81 others (as per list annexed), members of a registered Co-operative Society namely Kustore Shramik Sahyog Samiti Ltd. is justified? If so, to what relief are these concerned workmen entitled to?
3. The case of the concerned workmen is that they were the members of Kustore Shramik Sahyog Samiti Ltd, a Co-operative Society, and were engaged by the Management of Murlidih Colliery to work in different time rated jabs of the colliery in the month of April, 1999 and they were continued to work as such till the end of January, 1992. However, in January, 1992, they were stopped from work by the Management when they asked the Management to regularize them in the service. Further case of the workmen is that they were engaged by the Management of Murlidih colliery both in underground and surface of the mine on different time-rated jobs, such as, Stone cutting, tyndals, installation of machines, stopping, etc under direct control and supervision of the Management. They were issued implements for doing day-to-day work by the Management and their attendance were also marked by the management and they ware paid wages through the pay-clerk of the management. According to the workmen, they were working in a prohibited category of work like tyndals, stone cutting, etc for more than two years and became entitled to regularization.
4. The case of the management before the Tribunal is that the concerned workmen are the members of the Co-operative Society and they were given some contractual work from 1980 to January, 1992 for doing some temporary work and payments were being made by the Co-operative Society through cheques. The concerned workmen had never worked under the supervision and control of the Management and no relationship of employer and employee exist between the Management of the Huruladih colliery and concerned workmen. According to the Management, the concerned workmen have never worked on permanent and perennial nature of job. As a matter of fact, a Co-operative Society was assigned to do some contractual job of very short duration and purely temporary in nature. The concerned persons were never made payment of wages by the representatives of the Management. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence held that the relationship of employer and employee has been fully established and since they were working continuously for about three years, they became entitled to be regularized as permanent employee of the Company. Accordingly, the reference was answered in favour of the workmen and the Management was directed to reinstate the concerned workmen into service on permanent wages.
5. The award of the Tribunal was challenged by the Management before the learned Single Judge who after considering the finding recorded by the Tribunal and also considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court held that the award of the tribunal is perverse and erroneous in law. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal has been set aside. Learned Single Judge held that even assuming that the workmen were working directly under the Management, admittedly they worked on time-rated basis between April, 1989 to January, 1992 only intermittingly. In that view of the matter, the question of regularization does not arise.
6. Mr. A.N. Deo, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal without assigning any reason. Learned Counsel submitted that the award of the Tribunal is based on facts and evidence and materials brought on record and, therefore, the award of the Tribunal ought not to have been interfered with by this Court. Learned Counsel submitted that the Management withheld the important and relevant documents which would have established the case of the concerned workmen. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly drew adverse inference against the Management and decided the reference in favour of the workmen.
7. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the Management, on the other hand, submitted that the award of the Tribunal is beyond the reference. Learned Counsel submitted that the dispute referred to the Tribunal for adjudication was as to whether the demand of the Union for regularization/employment by the Management of Bhalgora Area of B.C.C.L. in relation to the 81 members of the registered society is justified, whereas the Tribunal passed an award for reinstatement of 81 concerned workmen of the Co-operative Society. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has committed grave error of law in drawing adverse inference inasmuch as the Management was never directed for production of document. Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the award made by the Tribunal.
8. It is admitted case of the appellant, namely the concerned workmen, that they are members of Co-operative Society who were engaged by the Management to work as different time-rated jobs in the colliery in the month of April, 1989 and they continued to work as such till January, 1992. From January, 1992, they were stopped from the work by the Management when they asked the Management to regularize them on permanent roll of the Company and to make payment of wage. According to the appellant, the concerned workmen while working in the colliery were under the direct control and supervision of Management and they were paid their pay through clerk of the Management. The Tribunal proceeded to decide as to whether there existed relationship of employer and employee and whether they ware doing job and completed more than 190/250 days of work during a calendar year. The workmen proved certain documents to show that note-sheet was prepared by the Company and bill for day to day work during the month of October, 1990 was prepared. The workmen have also filed certain requisition slips issued by the management to show that they have been requisitioned sometime 12 heads of Co-operative Society, sometimes 8 eights, sometimes 10 heads and sometimes 15 heads of different numbers of Co-operative workers. They have also brought on record certain documents to show that a lump sum amount was paid to the Co-operative Society by different cheques. The Tribunal, therefore, held that since the concerned workmen of the Society completed 190/250 days of continuous work in one calendar year, they were entitled to be regularized as permanent employees of the Company against the sanctioned posts. Consequently, although reference was with respect to regularization, the Tribunal directed the Management to reinstate the concerned workmen into service on payment of wages as prescribed in N.C.W.A. (National Coal Wage Agreement).
9. Prima facie, we are of the view that the award of the Tribunal is erroneous in law and against the principles of regularization/reinstatement in service.
10. At the very outset, we hold that merely because the concerned workmen continuously worked for 240 days in one calendar year, that too as members of Co-operative Society, they cannot and shall not acquire any right to be regularized in service.
11. The Apex Court in series of decisions held that completion of 240 days of work does not confer right to regularization under the Industrial Disputes Act. It merely imposes certain obligations on the employer at the time of termination of services. In this regard, reference may be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh and Ors. (2007) 7 S.C.C. 207, Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Evam Prodyogiki Vishwavidyalaya v. United Trades Congress and Anr. : (2008)ILLJ875SC and, State of Uttaranchal and Anr. v. Prantiya Sinchai Avam Bandh Yogana Shramik Mahaparishad (2007) 12 S.C.C. 483.
12. Apart from that, as noticed above, the Tribunal passed the award and granted relief which was beyond the reference. The dispute referred to the Tribunal for adjudication was as to whether the demand of Union for regularization of the concerned workmen, members of the Co-operative Society is justified, but the Tribunal without following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, passed an award for their reinstatement in permanent employment. In this regard, law is equally well settled that Labour Court or the Tribunal having derived its jurisdiction from the reference made by the appropriate Government, it is bound to act within the four corners itself. It cannot enlarge the scope of reference. The demand which was not raised at the time of raising dispute could not have been gone into by the Labour Court being not the subject-matter thereof. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra L. Jain and Ors. v. Indore Development Authority and Ors. : (2005)ILLJ578SC . After having considered the entire facts of the case and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, we fully agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, needs no interference by this Court.
13. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.