Summary
A settlement regularising 19 contract workers did not prevent adjudication of the remaining 13 workers’ claims under the Government’s reference. Evidence, including management testimony, established that all performed comparable permanent and perennial work covered by the wage agreement. The employer’s distinction was unjustified. The Court upheld regularisation and dismissed the employer’s appeals, modifying only backwages: they were payable from the Tribunal’s decision on 23 May 2002, taking account of prolonged litigation and public interest.
Issues
- Whether the partial settlement barred adjudication of the remaining workers’ claims.
- Whether the evidence justified distinguishing the two groups.
- From what date backwages should be awarded.
Provisions considered
- Sections 18, 19 and 36; settlement objection, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The binding-settlement argument did not defeat the subsequent reference encompassing all 32 workers. The Tribunal had to adjudicate the remaining workers’ unresolved claims independently. (¶¶ 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- Rule 58, Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957The conciliation settlement regularised 19 workers while recording the management’s opposition to the remaining claims; it did not deprive the Tribunal of authority to decide the reference. (¶¶ 4, 5, 16, 17)
- Clauses 11.5.1 and 11.5.2, National Coal Wage Agreement IVThe prohibition on contract labour for permanent and perennial jobs informed the regularisation award, supported by findings that both groups performed such work. (¶¶ 3, 6, 20, 21, 22)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaConcurrent factual findings supported the award, with no substantial legal basis or discretionary ground for interference apart from the limited backwage modification. (¶¶ 18, 19, 22, 24, 25)
Held
- The settlement covered regularisation of 19 of the 32 workers and recorded management’s contention that the others performed casual work. The Government then referred the entire dispute, requiring the Tribunal to examine the remaining claims and make independent findings. The settlement was not the last word barring that adjudication. (¶¶ 4, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- The Tribunal’s evidence-based finding, affirmed by the High Court, established that the remaining workers performed work equally permanent and perennial. Management witnesses supported that conclusion. The employer failed to establish a genuine distinction from those already regularised. (¶¶ 6, 8, 18, 20, 21, 22)
- The worksite allocation also undermined the asserted distinction: some bunker and coal-handling workers were regularised while others doing the same work were excluded, and the railway-siding work was also regular and perennial. These facts supported equal status in this dispute, rather than an automatic regularisation rule for all contract labour. (¶¶ 3, 20, 21, 22)
- The wrongful exclusion was not attributable to the workmen. Backwages were upheld, but their commencement was confined to the Tribunal’s decision of 23 May 2002 in light of the protracted litigation and public interest. This was the only modification to the affirmed award. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25)
- Both employer appeals, including the challenge following review, were dismissed with the backwage direction and no costs. (¶ 25)
Result
Employer’s appeals dismissed without costs; regularisation of the remaining 13 workers upheld. Award modified only to confine backwages to the period beginning 23 May 2002.