EMP., MGMT OF RAMKANALI COLLIERY OF M/S. BCCL versus WORKMEN BY SECY. RASHT. COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH AND ANR

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 847 · Decided: 27-03-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
EMP., MGMf OF RAMKANALI COLLIERY OF MIS. BCCL 
A 
~ 
v. 
WORKMEN BY SECY. RASHf. COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH 
ANDANR. 
MARCH 27, 2001 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1973 : Section 14. 
Coal Mines-Nationalisation of-Workmen stopped from working by c 
management-Management contended that the workmen were not in employ-
ment before takeover-Industrial Tribunal held that the workmen were work-
men at the lime of takeover and should be allowed to resume their duties-
Cormctness of-Held: Tribunal found that the workmen in question have not 
ceased to be employees, but were not allowed to do work-Such finding of fact 
cannot be faulted with aJ all-Hence, no interference called for-Labour Laws. 
D 
The respondent-workmen raised a dispute before the Industrial Tri-
bunal that they were stopped from work in the Colliery of the appellant-
management. The appellant contended before the Tribunal that the non-
coking coal mines were taken over by the Central Government and was 
nationalised and none of the respondent-workmen were in employment 
E 
before the date of takeover. The Tribunal held that the concerned work-
men were workmen of the Colliery at the time of takeover and they should 
be allowed to resume duty from the date of takeover. The High Court 
dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that under Set:tion 14 of 
F 
-Jr 
the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1973 a workman who was in the 
employment on the appointed date, namely 1.5.1973 alone was entitled to 
be protected in employment; that 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 
G 
have passed the award in 1987. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Conrt 
HELD : 1. H there is both repeal and introduction of another provi-
sion in place thereof by a single exercise, the expression "substituted'' is 
H 
847 
A 
B 
848 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 2 S.C.R. 
used. Such deletion has the effect of the repeal of the existing provision and 
also provide for introduction of new provision. There is thus no real 
distinction between repeal and amendment or substitution in such cases. H 
that aspect is borne in mind, the usual principles of finding out the rights 
of the parties flowing from an amendment of a provision have to be 
applied. H there is a vested right and that right i~ 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 10 longer be contended that 
the right should be enforced. However, that I !gal position, in the present 
case, does not affect the rights of the parties: s such. [852-F-G] 
C 
Workmen v. Bharat Coking Coal Ud., [l 978] 2 SCC 175 and Bhagat 
Ram Sharma v. Union of India, [1988] Supp. S :c 30, relied on. 
Bhubaneshwar Singh v. Union of India, [ .994] 6 SCC 77, held inappli· 
cable. 
D 
2. The Coal Mines Nationalisation A ~t, 1973 came into force on 
1.5.1973 and the employees (including forn er employees whose services 
were terminated) will continue to hold such !mployment as iC nationalisa· 
tion bad not taken place. In the present case ·the finding of the Tribunal is 
that the employees in question had not cea ed to be employees but were 
E 
merely not allowed to do work. This finding af fact arrived at on apprecia· 
·~ 
F 
lion of evidence, cannotbe faulted with at a· 1; Hence, the right enforced by 
the employees will not attract the amende l provision of the Act, which 
came into force on 15.12.1986. [852-H; 853 A] 
CIVIi, APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5797 of 1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated i.4.98 of. the Patna High Court 
in L.P.A. No. 125 of 1989 (R). 
WIIB 
G 
Civil Appeal No. 7596 of 1999. 
Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, !tjit Knmar Sinha and S.C. Malik 
for the Appellant. 
S.B. Upadhyay, Ms. Shweta Verma, .Ms. Santosh Misra, Tathagat H. 
H 
Vardhan and Sujit Knmar for the Respondents. 
I 
> 
EMP~ MGMT. OF RAMKANALI COLLIERY OF BCCL v. WORKMEN BY SECY. RAS HT. COLLIERY 
MAZDOOR SANGH (RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAJENDRA BABU, J. C.A.No. 5797/1998 
849 
Four workmen, who claimed to be working from May or July 1972 in 
A 
the Ramkanali Colliery of the appellant, raised a dispute that they were 
stopped from work by the manageme

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.