It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of various kinds of companyl.
It is number in dispute that during the pendency of the suit, the services of these workers were discontinued.
By judgment and decree dated 27.05.1983, the trial Court decreed the suit and held that the plaintiffs are entitled to companytinue in services of BCCL.
Dhanbad are justified in number absorbing Sarvashri Gorakh Sharma and 38 others as their regular employees?
447 of 2009 which arises out of the order dated 03.09.2009 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court in W.J.C. No.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find numbermerit in the main submissions of the appellants but find substance in the alternative submission.
616 of 1999 R before the High Court.
Since the execution of the work was to be done on turnkey basis, the Contractor was required to do every thing to make the Washery operational.
The BCCL did number challenge the award and implemented the directions by absorbing and regularizing these 39 workers in their employment.
While assailing the legality and companyrectness of the impugned judgment, Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants mainly urged two points.
These 39 workers companytinued to work.
If number, to what reliefs are the said workmen entitled?
The Government acceded to their request and accordingly made the following reference to the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate Whether the management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., P.O. Sudamdih, Dist.
Felt aggrieved, the BCCL filed Title Appeal No.
By impugned judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the appellants intra companyrt appeal and upheld the order of the writ companyrt, which had dismissed the appellants writ petition and in companysequence upheld the award dated 21.12.1998 passed by the Labour Court in Reference Case No.
The Industrial Tribunal by its award dated 03.03.1983 answered the reference in workers favour and directed that 39 workers be absorbed by the BCCL in their employment as their regular employees and they be given all such companysequential benefits to which they were entitled to claim due to their regularization in the services of BCCL.
The High Court, by judgment and order dated 05.03.1993 allowed the Second Appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the two Courts which had decreed the plaintiffs suit.
Against the aforesaid judgment, the plaintiffs workers filed Special Leave Petition being Special Leave Petition C No.
58 of 1981 to answer the following question Whether the management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., P.O. Sudamdih, Dist.
71 of 1983 before the Appellate Court.
The Industrial Tribunal by award dated 21.12.1998 answered the reference against the workers.
The workers, felt aggrieved, filed C.W.J.C.No.
They were, therefore, numbermore in the employment.
The respondent M s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd hereinafter referred to as the BCCL is a Government of India undertaking.
Dhanbad are justified in number absorbing Ainuel Haque and 150 others as in the list annexed as their regular employees?
The workers pursued the matter and filed intra Court appeal being L.P.A. No.
If number, to what relief are the said workmen entitled?
An agreement was accordingly executed between the BCCL and the Contractor on 29.01.1976.
It was held that the suit was number maintainable in the light of provisions of Labour laws.
Challenging the said order, the workers filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
On 24.07.1974, the BCCL invited tenders for companystruction of Washery on Turnkey basis for running the companyliery.
Since their demands were number accepted, a reference was made under Section 10 of the Act to Industrial Tribunal No.
3 Dhanbad vide Reference Case No.
The Division Bench by impugned judgment dismissed the appeal finding numberfault in the award.
These 39 employees raised a dispute demanding their absorption and companytinuation in service with the BCCL.
It has a companyliery at Dhanbad, Jharkhand known as Sudamdih Coal Washery.
The companytract was awarded to one Company M s MC Nelly, Bharat Engineering Company Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Contractor .
The Appellate Court by judgment and order dated 16.12.1986 dismissed the appeal and companyfirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
They also prayed for an injunction restraining the BCCL from terminating their services pending civil suit.
The BCCL pursued the matter further and filed an appeal being Second Appeal No.23 of 1987 R before the High Court.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
The Trial Court, however, on companytest declined to grant the temporary injunction to the plaintiffs.
This civil appeal is filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioners against the judgment and order dated 17.06.2011 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in L.P.A. No.
447 of 2009.
The learned single Judge by orders dated 03.09.2009 dismissed the writ petition and upheld the award passed by the Tribunal.
After retaining their services for about one year, the Management terminated the services of these 39 employees in January, 1981.
51/1980 against the BCCL in the Court of Munsif 2nd Dhanbad under Order I Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for declaration that they are entitled to companytinue in their services under the BCCL and prayed that their services be absorbed and regularized in the services of BCCL with all companysequential benefits.
75 of 1995.
616 of 1999 R .
