Mgmt of Ramkanali Coll. of M/S BCCL Vs. Workmen by Secy. Rasht. Coll. Maz. Sangh
& Anr  Insc 180 (27 March 2001)
S.N.Variava Rajendra Babu, J. :
Appeal (civil) 7596 of 1999
5797/98 Four workmen, who claimed to be working from May or July 1972 in the Ramkanali
Colliery of the appellant, raised a dispute that they were stopped from work by
the management. The appellant contended before the Industrial Tribunal to whom
this matter was referred that the non-coking coal mines were taken over by the
Central Government on 31.1.1973 and was nationalized with effect from 1.5.1973
and none of these workmen were in employment before the date of take over.
After the take over of the Colliery, a Screening Committee consisting of the
representatives of the employer and the workmen scrutinized the claim of the
workmen and found that the claim of these workmen was without any basis. The
reference made to the Industrial Tribunal reads as follows :
the demand of the workmen of Ramkanali Colliery of Messrs. Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, Post Office Katrasgarh, District Dhanbad that Sarvashri Bishundeo
Singh, Kanhaiya Prasad Karan, Attendance Clerks, Ashok Kumar Das, Munshi and Bachu
Singh, Night Guard of West Ramkanali Section should be allowed to resume duty
is justified? If so, to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled and from
what date? The Tribunal examined the matter in detail and on consideration of
evidence held that the concerned four workmen were workmen of the Ramkanali
Colliery at the time of take over and they should be allowed to resume duty
from the date of take over. Thereby the management of the appellant was
directed to reinstate the said workmen with continuity of service from the
respective dates of stoppage of their duties. However, the Tribunal made
certain adjustments regarding payment of wages for the period for which they
had not worked. The matter was carried by way of a writ petition to the High
Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the
award and the matter was carried by the workmen in letters patent appeal to the
Division Bench which allowed the same and restored the award made by the
Tribunal. Hence this appeal by special leave.
contention put forth before us is that under Section 14 of the Coal Mines Nationalisation
Act, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] a workman who was in the
employment on the appointed date, namely, 1.5.1973 alone is entitled to be
protected in employment. On the date when the reference was made to the
Tribunal, provision of Section 14 of the Act stood substituted with
retrospective effect from 1.5.1973 and, therefore, the Tribunal could not have
passed the award in the year 1987. In the Workmen vs. the Bharat Coking Coal
Ltd. & Ors., 1978 (2) SCC 175, this Court examined the scope and effect of
the provisions of Sections 9 and 17 of the Coking Coal Mines Nationalisation
Act, 1972, which are identical to Sections 7 and 14 of the Act in all respects.
This Court held that Section 9 (similar to Section 7 of the Act) granted
immunity to the Government against any award and it has to be read along with
Section 17(1) (similar to Section 14(1) of the Act). So read, Section 9 does
not nullify Section 17 or have a larger operation.
very felicitous terms, this Court stated the position as under:
Section 9 deals with the topic of prior liabilities of the previous owner.
Section 9(1) speaks of every liability of the owner prior to the appointed day,
shall be the liability of such owner . and shall be enforceable against him and
not against the Central Government or the Government Company. The inference is
irresistible that Section 9(1) has nothing to do with wrongful dismissals and
awards for reinstatement. Employees are not a liability (as yet in our
country). Section 9(1) deals with pecuniary and other liabilities and has
nothing to do with workmen. If at all it has anything to do with workmen it is
regarding arrears of wages or other contractual, statutory or tortious
liabilities. Section 9(2) operates only in the area of Section 9(1) and that is
why it starts off by saying for the removal of doubts it is hereby declared ..
So, Section 9(2) seeks only to remove doubts in the area covered by Section
9(1) and does not deal with any other topic or subject matter.
9(2)(b) when it refers to awards goes along with the words decree, or order. By
the canon of construction of noscitur a sociis with expression award must have
a restricted meaning. Moreover, its scope if delimited by Section 9(1). If back
wages before the appointed day have been awarded or other sums, accrued prior
to nationalisation, have been directed to be paid to any workman by the new
owner, Section 9(2)(b) makes such claims non-enforceable. We do not see any
reason to hold that Section 9(2)(b) nullifies Section 17(1) or has a larger
operation than Section 9(1). We are clear that the whole provision confers
immunity against liability, not a right to jettison workmen under the employ of
the previous owner in the eye of law.
the contention put forth before us is that Section 14 of the Act stood
substituted by an amendment made to it by deleting several provisions thereof.
Section 14(1) of the Act provided as follows :
Employment of certain employees to continue (1) Every person who is a workmen
within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and has been
immediately before the appointed date, an employee of the Central Government,
in which the right, title and interest of such mine have vested under this Act,
and shall hold office or service in the coal mine with the same rights would
have been admissible to him if the rights in relation to such coal mine had not
been transferred to, and vested in, the Central Government or the Government
Company, as the case may be, and continue to do so unless and until his
employment in such Coal Mine is duly terminated or until his remuneration,
terms and conditions of employment are duly altered by the Central Government or
the Government Company.
of the provisions not extracted since unnecessary) The said provision stood
deleted and substituted by the following provision:
Liability of officer or other employee of a coal mine for transfer to any other
coal mine. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, or in any other law for the time being in force, the services of any
officer or other employee employed in a coal mine shall be liable to be
transferred to any compensation under this Act or any other law for the time
being in force and no such claim shall be entertained by any court, tribunal or
argument advanced now is that protection available under Section 14 is no
longer available on the date when the award was made and, therefore, contended
that the award is a nullity. The decision in Bhubaneshwar Singh & Anr. vs.
Union of India & Ors., 1994 (6) SCC 77, is in the context of enactment of
law reviewing the defect pointed out in a judgment and retrospectively enacting
the law so as to render the judgment of the court ineffective thus enacting a
validating provision was considered. What happened in that case was courts took
the view that the sale price of the stock of extracted coal lying at the
commencement of the appointed date had to be taken into account for determining
the profit and loss during the period of management of the mine by Central
Government. Thereafter, the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment)
Ordinance and Act, 1986 was issued. Section 19(2) of the Principal Act as
introduced by the Amending Act and Section 19 of the Amending Act providing
that the amount payable as compensation shall be deemed to include and deemed
always to have included in the amount required to be paid to the owner in respect
of all coal in stock on the date immediately before the appointed date. The
said Amending Act was held to be valid as it altered the basis of the principal
Act with retrospective effect as a result of which court' judgment was rendered
ineffective and, therefore, this Court upheld the said provision. That decision
can have no application to the present case nor are we concerned with the
validity of the provisions of the enactment in question. What we are concerned
in the present case is the effect of the expression substituted used in the
context of deletion of sub-clauses of Section 14, as was original enacted.
Ram Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors., 1988 Supp. SCC 30, this Court stated
that it is a matter of legislative practice to provide while enacting an
amending law, that an existing provision shall be deleted and a new provision
substituted. If there is both repeal and introduction of another provision in
place thereof by a single exercise, the expression substituted is used. Such
deletion has the effect of the repeal of the existing provision and also
provide for introduction of new provision. In our view there is thus no real
distinction between repeal and amendment or substitution in such cases. If that
aspect is borne in mind, we have to apply the usual principles of finding out
the rights of the parties flowing from an amendment of a provision. If there is
a vested right and that right is to be taken away, necessarily the law will
have to be retrospective in effect and if such a law retrospectively takes away
such a right, it can no longer be contended that the right should be enforced.
However, that legal position, in the present case, does not affect the rights
of the parties as such.
Act came into force on 1.5.1973 and the employees (including former employees
whose services were terminated) will continue to hold such employment as if nationalisation
had not taken place. In the present case, the finding of the Tribunal is that
the employees in question had not ceased to be employees but were merely not
allowed to do work. This finding of fact arrived at on appreciation of
evidence, cannot be faulted with at all.
the right enforced by the employees will not attract the amended provision of
the Act which came into force on 15.12.1986.
that view of the matter, we do not think that the award made by the Tribunal is
in any way wrong particularly, when the decision has been given on facts that
as on the date of the take over the concerned workmen were employees of the
appellant management. If that is so, they never ceased to be employees.
that happened was they were prevented from working in the Colliery, which was
set right by the award. We find no substance in this appeal. The same shall,
therefore, stand dismissed. No costs.
7596/99 The questions arising for consideration being identical this appeal is