The judgment of the High Court was challenged before this Court in Civil Appeal No.
The Award was modified in the following terms the impugned awards are modified to the extent that as and when M s. 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 companyditions as to the works age appropriately taking into companysideration their age at the time of their initial appointment and also by relaxing the companydition regarding academic technical qualification.
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.
In 1993, a reference was made by the appropriate government under Section 10 1 d of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad on the demand raised by the workmen for regularisation.
In that reference, an Award was rendered by the Industrial Tribunal on 14 August 2000 directing BCCL to regularise 73 out of 76 workmen.
5 Leave was granted in these proceedings on 27 November 2015.
The present proceedings have been instituted to challenge the judgment of the Division Bench dated 16 July 2012.
The order rejecting the representation numberes that the workmen had worked in 1987 1989 with a dummy companytractor and nearly 26 years had elapsed since then.
The reference was as follows Whether the demand of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh for regularization of the workmen on the role of Balihari Colliery of M s BCCL Ltd., and payments to them of wages as per N.C.W.A. is justified?
The order of the High Court was number challenged by the Union representing the workmen.
4 During the pendency of these proceedings an effort was made to secure an amicable resolution of the dispute, which was unsuccessful.
Eventually, a writ petition was filed before the High Court under Article 226 seeking a direction to the employer to furnish employment to 20 workmen in terms of the order of the High Court dated 18 May 2004.
By its Award, the Industrial Tribunal allowed the reference in the following terms The management of BCCL is directed to regularise the companycerned workmen as per annexure of the reference as permanent employee as per NCWA in Cat.
In a Letters Patent Appeal LPA 543 of 2001 , a Division Bench of the High Court by a judgment dated 10 March 2003 modified 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 companyditions of age and eligibility.
In that case, the Award of the Industrial Tribunal was modified by a Division Bench of the High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal on 10 March 2003.
In companysequence the workmen were directed to be reinstated though without any backwages.
I within three months from the date of publication of this Award with the wages and other amenities to which they are entitled to.
The management challenged the Award in writ proceedings before the High Court CWJC 3824 of 2000 .
BCCL, it has been stated, was until recently a sick companypany under the BIFR and had number initiated any regular process of recruitment after the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18 May 2004.
Evidently, numberchallenge was raised to the modification of the Award by the High Court unlike in the case of Reference 204 of 1994.
Accordingly, a reasoned order was issued on 16 September 2015 by the Project Officer.
Of the 20 original workmen, 14 are left in the fray.
Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J 1 The Appellant, which is a registered trade union, espoused the cause of the workmen engaged at Balihari Colliery under Bharat Coking Coal Limited BCCL .
The workmen were engaged between 1987 and 1989.
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 companyld number be sought by invoking the jurisdiction under Article In a Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench by a judgment dated 16 July 2012 affirmed the view of the learned Single Judge.
The order numberes 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 2011 by filing a representation on 22 August 2011 and thereafter instituting writ proceedings.
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 was ordered without backwages.
The High Court by a judgment dated 26 July 2001 dismissed the writ petition.
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 1654 of 1997.
Thus the reference is disposed of and this is my Award.
3962 of 2006 by the Union.
But numberback wages is given number is it claimed.
No appeal was filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 18 May 2004 by the Union.
By a judgment and order dated 18 November 2009 the Civil Appeal was allowed and the Award of the Industrial Tribunal was restored.
The Industrial Tribunal delivered an Award on 9 September 1996 in the above mentioned reference, Reference 26 of 1993.
No companyt is awarded also to either of the parties.
2 Separately, the appropriate government made another reference on 11 August 1994, being Reference 204 of 1994, under Section 10 1 d of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of 76 workmen who had been denied regularisation in Balihari Colliery.
If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled?
However, on 22 August 2011 a representation was submitted on behalf of the workmen 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.
