OSHIAR PRASAD AND OTHERS versus THE EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO MANAGEMENT OF SUDAMDIH COAL WASHERY OF M/S BCCL, DHANBAD, JHARKHAND

Citation: [2015] 2 S.C.R. 540 · Decided: 02-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 2 S.C.R. 540 
OSHIAR PRASAD AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO MANAGEMENT OF 
SUDAMDIH COAL WASHERY OF MIS BCCL, DHANBAD, 
JHARKHAND 
(Civil Appeal No.1389 of 2015) 
FEBRUARY 02, 2015 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAAND 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-s. 10- Reference of disputes 
A 
B 
c 
to Boards, Courts or Tribunals by the appropriate D 
Government- Power of- Held: Appropriate Government is 
empowered to make a reference uls. 10 only when 'industrial 
dispute exists' or 'is apprehended between the parties' -
Tribunal while answering the reference has to confine its 
inquiry only to the question(s) referred - On facts, services E 
of the appellants, at whose instance the reference was made 
were terminated long back prior to making of the reference -
Thus, there was no industrial dispute that 'existed' or 
'apprehended' in relation to appellants' absorption in the 
services of the BCCL on the date of making the reference -
F 
In view thereof, absorpUon or regularization of appellants in 
the services of BCCL, did not arise and nor could be gone 
into on its merits - Furthermore, no parity could be sought 
with the reference made by the 39 workers in the BCCL wherein 8 . 
they were absorbed because they were in the service - Thus, 
courts below rightly held that the appellants were not entitled 
to claim any absorption in the services qua the BCCL -
However, appellants entitled to claim the retrenchment 
compensation from the Contractor!BCCL. 
H 
540 
541 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The appropriate Government is 
empowered to make a reference under Section 1 O of the 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 only when "industrial 
B dispute exists" or "is apprehended between the parties". 
The tribunal while answering the reference has to 
confine its inquiry to the question(s) referred and has 
no jurisdiction to travel beyond the question(s) or/and 
the terms of the reference while answering the reference. 
C A fortiori, no inquiry can be made on those questions, 
• which are not specifically referred to the tribunal while 
answering the reference. [Para 25] [553-D-F] 
1.2 The services of the appellants and those at whose 
D instance the reference was made were terminated long 
back prior to making of the reference. These workers 
were, therefore, not in the services of either Contractor 
or/and BCCL on the date of making the reference in 
question. Therefore, there was no industrial dispute that 
E "existed" or "apprehended" in relation to appellants' 
absorption in the services of the BCCL on the date of 
making the reference. Indeed a dispute regarding the 
appellants' absorption was capable of being referred to 
F in reference for adjudication, had the appellants been in 
the services of Contractor or/and BCCL. But since the 
appellants' services were discontinued or/and 
retrenched (whether rightly or wrongly) long back, the 
question of their absorption or regularization in the 
G services of BCCL, as claimed by them, did not arise and 
nor this issue could have been gone into on its merits 
for the reason that it was not legally possible to give any 
direction to absorb/regularize the appellants so long as 
they were not in the employment. [Paras 26, 27] [553-F-
H H; 554-A-C] 
OSHIAR PRASAD v. EMPLOYERS', SUDAMDIH COAL 
542 
WASHERY OF MIS BCCL 
1.3 The only industrial dispute, which existed for being A 
referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication was 
in relation to termination of appellant's emp' oyment was 
not referred to the tribunal and, therefore, it attained 
finality against the appellants. Therefore, the reference, 
even if made to examine the issue of absorption of the B 
appellants in the services of BCCL, the same was 
misconceived. [Paras 29,30] [554-F-G] 
1.4 There is no parity in the facts of the earlier reference 
made to decide the absorption of 39 workers in the BCCL C 
and the instant case. This could be made because they 
were in the service. So far as the instant case is 
concerned, the appellants were not in service. Merely 
because the workers in both the references were D 
working in one project by itself was not enough to give 
them any right to claim parity with the claim of others. 
So long as, the parity was not proved on all the relevant 
issues arising in the case, no worker whether individual 
or collectively was. entitled to claim the relief only on the E 
basis of simil

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