Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2023 DAILYLAW 1984 (CAL)

Bharat Cooking Coal Limited v. Dhaneswar Pandey

2023-08-29

Rai Chattopadhyay, V M Velumani

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1.The respondent nos. 1 to 19/writ petitioners filed writ petition being W.P. No. 2211 (W) of 2015 seeking relief of issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondent, i.e, the present appellants, to pay them the wages at revised rate of highly skilled persons in terms of recommendation of High Powered Committee and w.e.f from 01.01.2013 along with interest thereon. 2. According to the respondent nos. 1 to 19 they are the contract workers working under the contractor of appellant at Railway siding of Bhojudih Coal Washery under the Bharat Cooking Coal Limited. The High Power Committee recommended for minimum wages for contract workers working in the mining activities. The recommendation of the High Power Committee was approved by the Board of Directors of appellant. Even after acceptance of the recommendation, the appellant did not pay the wages as recommended by the High Power Committee. On these averments, the respondent nos. 1 to 19 filed the writ petition being W.P. No. 2211 (W) of 2015. 3. The appellant filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that identity of respondent nos. 1 to 19 as contract labourers was not established and no document was produced to show that they are employed by contractors. Union of the respondent nos. 1 to 19 raised disputes for regularization of respondent nos. 1 to 19 and others and the same is pending under Reference No. 19 of 2007 and Reference No. 16 of 2009 before the Central Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Asansol and, hence, the writ petition was not maintainable and should not have been entertained. The appellant further stated that recommendation of the High Power Committee applies only to the contract labourers working in the Mining activities and there is no mining activities in the Railway siding of Bhojudih Coal Washery under the Bharat Cooking Coal Limited. The respondent nos. 1 to 19 are engaged only for the maintenance of Railway tracks and the High Power Committee has not recommended for the workers in coal washery. Therefore, the demand for payment of minimum wages cannot be accepted. 4. The appellant also stated that claim of the respondent nos. 1 to 19 as per National Coal Wage Agreement is not applicable since they are not engaged in the Mining activities. The maintenance of the railway tracks is not similar with the working of mining activities, where people are engaged for production of Coal. 4. The appellant also stated that claim of the respondent nos. 1 to 19 as per National Coal Wage Agreement is not applicable since they are not engaged in the Mining activities. The maintenance of the railway tracks is not similar with the working of mining activities, where people are engaged for production of Coal. The respondent nos. 1 to 19 are being paid by the respondent no. 5 and the office order dated 18.02.2013 is not applicable to the respondent nos. 1 to 19. It is prayed that the appeal may for dismissal be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of the Hon’ble Single Bench. 5. Learned Judge considering Clause 2 of the recommendation of the High Power Committee held that the said recommendation applies to the contract labourers working in the railway washery and the respondent nos. 1 to 19 are working in Bhojudih Coal Washery, Santaldih, Purulia at the railway siding and disposed the writ petition directing the appellant to implement the recommendation of the High Power Committee in case of respondent nos. 1 to 19 after ensuring that they were continuing as the contract workers and still engaged at the railway siding at Bhojudih Coal Washery. 6. Against the said order the appellant has come out with the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Judge failed to consider the contention of the appellant that there is no mining work at Railway siding of Bhojudih Coal Washery under the Bharat Cooking Coal Limited and that respondent nos. 1 to 19 are not doing any mining activities in the railway tracks. They are engaged only for maintenance of railway tracks. The High Power Committee recommended the said wages only to contract labourers as defined under Section 2 (h), (j) and (k) of Mines Act, 1952 and also the labour who are engaged in the mining activities in the washery area. 8. Learned Judge failed to consider the contention of the appellant that the respondent nos. 1 to 19 are not engaged in the mining activities and there is a distinction between the coal washery inside the mine and adjacent to the mining and stand alone coal washery which is far away from the mining area. The stand alone unit are not adjacent to the mines and there is no mining activities. 9. 1 to 19 are not engaged in the mining activities and there is a distinction between the coal washery inside the mine and adjacent to the mining and stand alone coal washery which is far away from the mining area. The stand alone unit are not adjacent to the mines and there is no mining activities. 9. Learned Judge without considering the facts that Railway siding of Bhojudih Coal Washery under the Bharat Cooking Coal Limited is a stand alone unit and is not adjacent or belonging to any mine passed in the order in the writ petition. 10. Learned Judge interpreting the wahsery mentioned in clause 2 of the recommendation of the High Power Committee held that it is applicable to railway wahsery also where there is no mining activities. 11. The recommendation of the High Power Committee is applicable only to the contract workers and not to the respondent nos. 1 to 19 and hence, the respondent nos. 1 to 19 are not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition and prayed for setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allowing the appeal. 12. Per contra, Mr. Nirmalendu Ganguly, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 19 submitted that Clause 2 of the recommendation of the High Power Committee is very clear and unambiguous for payment of minimum wages for contract workers working in the railway washery of the appellant. The High Power Committee has not restricted the payment of minimum wages to the contract workers engaged in mining activities in washery. 13. Learned Judge has considered Clause 2 of the recommendation of the High Power Committee and rightly held that the respondent nos. 1 to 19 are entitled to minimum wages as recommended by the High Power Committee and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 14. Heard Mr. Anirban Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Nirmalendu Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the entire materials on record. 15. From the above materials it is seen that in the writ petition filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 19, the appellants have filed affidavit-in-opposition. 14. Heard Mr. Anirban Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Nirmalendu Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the entire materials on record. 15. From the above materials it is seen that in the writ petition filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 19, the appellants have filed affidavit-in-opposition. The appellant took two technical objection that is due to pendency of dispute in Reference No. 19 of 2007 and Reference No. 16 of 2009 before the Central Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Asansol for regularization of service, the writ petition cannot be entertained and that the respondent nos. 1 to 19 are the contract workers. 16. The learned Judge rejected the objections of the appellant. The dispute pending in the Central Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Asansol is with regard to regularization of contract workers including the respondent nos. 1 to 19. It is different from the present claim of the respondent nos. 1 to 19 in the writ petition. 17. Secondly, in the affidavit-in-opposition itself the appellant has stated that the respondent nos. 1 to 19 were engaged only for maintenance of railway tracks and not engaged in the mining activities. 18. The appellants have not challenged the finding of the learned Judge that relief sought for in the present writ petition is distinct from the dispute raised and pending in the tribunal and appellant has admitted that respondent nos. 1 to 19 are the contract workers engaged in Railway siding of Bhojudih Coal Washery under the Bharat Cooking Coal Limited for maintenance of railway tracks. 19. The issues to be decided in the present appeal is whether washery mentioned in Clause 2 of the recommendation of the High Power Committee applies to washery where there is no mining activities namely Railway siding of Bhojudih Coal Washery and whether respondent nos. 1 to 19 are entitled to minimum wages mentioned in the recommendation of the High Power Committee even if they are not engaged in the mining activities. 20. For better appreciation Clause 2 of the recommendation of the High Power Committee is extracted hereinbelow:- (2) To examine and recommend the wages and social security measures for Contractors’ workers engaged in mining activities. 21. The said clause has to be read as a whole. It deals with contract workers engaged in mining activities. 20. For better appreciation Clause 2 of the recommendation of the High Power Committee is extracted hereinbelow:- (2) To examine and recommend the wages and social security measures for Contractors’ workers engaged in mining activities. 21. The said clause has to be read as a whole. It deals with contract workers engaged in mining activities. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that some of the washeries of the appellant have mining activities and in some of the washery of the appellant did not have mining activities. At the Railway siding of Bhojudih Coal Washery under the Bharat Cooking Coal Limited where the respondent nos. 1 to 19 are engaged, there is no mining activities and the respondent nos. 1 to 19 are not engaged for mining activities but only for the maintenance of railway tracks. He states further that objections raised in the affidavit-in-opposition were not disputed by the respondent nos. 1 to 19, except mere denial of same. The contentions in the respective paragraphs, have not been disputed by the said respondents. When the High Power Committee has recommended minimum wages for contract workers engaged in mining activities, the said recommendation will apply to washery only when there is mining activities and contract workers engaged in mining activities in the said washery. The recommendation of the High Power Committee is only for contract workers engaged in the mining activities. The appellant has stated that respondent nos. 1 to 19 are engaged for maintenance of railway tracks only and no mining activities in coal. The said paragraphs is extracted hereinbelow:- (i). That the respondent No.5, being the contractor was engaged by the respondent authority through tender process for maintenance of Railway Track in Marshaling Yard of Bhojudih coal washery as and when required. The petitioners are the contract labourers were engaged by the respondent No.5 being Contract for the aforementioned work on required basis. (l) That the petitioners made representations before the respondent authority praying for payment of wages of highly skilled with effect from 01.01.2013 in terms of the office order dated 18th February, 2013. In the said office order, it is clearly mentioned that the Borad of Directors in its 294th meeting held on 13th February, 2013 at CIL (HQ) Kolkata approved the recommendation of the High Power Committee on the wage of contractors’ workers engaged in the mining activities w.e.f. 01.01.2013. In the said office order, it is clearly mentioned that the Borad of Directors in its 294th meeting held on 13th February, 2013 at CIL (HQ) Kolkata approved the recommendation of the High Power Committee on the wage of contractors’ workers engaged in the mining activities w.e.f. 01.01.2013. It is stated that the petitioners are not engaged in the mining activities. The petitioners are engaged only for maintenance of railway tracks. The Coal India Limited has not fixed the rate of the contracts workers who are engaged for maintenance of railway tracks. Therefore the said demand for payment of higher wage is not justified. The said office order dated 18.02.2013 is not applicable in the case of the petitioners. The petitioners are not entitled to any relief in terms of the said office order. The said office order is applicable for those who are engaged in mining activities.” 22. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Judge failed to consider these facts that respondent nos. 1 to 19 are engaged only for maintenance of railway tracks and erroneously directed the appellant to pay the minimum wages meant for contract workers engaged in mining activities has considerable force and is acceptable. 23. Learned Judge failed to consider this contention and erroneously held that respondent nos. 1 to 19 are entitled to minimum wages as per recommendation of High Power Committee. 24. Whether mining activities are carried on in Bhojudih Coal Washery under the Bharat Cooking Coal Limited, and that whether it is situated near any mines or not and is only a stand along Unit, cannot be decided in the writ proceedings. It is made clear that the respondent nos. 1 to 19 are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum to establish that they are working in mines and are entitled to minimum wages as per recommendation of High Power Committee by letting in both oral and documentary evidence. 25. For the above reasons, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. 26. The appeal is allowed.