THE WORKMEN OF BHURKUNDA COLLIERY OF M/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. versus THE MANAGEMENT OF BHURKUNDA COLLIERY OF M/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 851 · Decided: 27-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN KUMAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

\ 'r 
i 
' 
THE WORKMEN OF BHURKUNDA COLLIERY OF 
.M/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. 
v. 
THE MANAGEMENT OF BHURKUNDA COLLIERY OF 
MIS CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. 
JANUARY 27, 2006 
[ARUN KUMAR AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
labour laws: 
A 
B 
c 
Regularization-Colliery taken-over by Central Coalflelds and its 
workmen employed-Claim of workmen to be put on regular basis as casual 
workers and regularized in course of time-Tribunal directing enlistment of 
workers as casual workers who justified their claim in different jobs and be 
regularised after fulfllling condition of attendance in a year-Petitions by D 
workmen not granted relief and also by Management and labour Union-
Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court upholding the award- On 
appeal held: Considering the philosophy of Industrial and labour 
jurisprudence and applying the laws meant for industrial peace and harmony 
order of tribunal calls for no interference-Employees working since 1973-
7 4, as such process of regularization to be completed expeditiously-Industrial E 
and labour jurisprudence. 
Industrial and Labour laws-Object of enactment-Held: Is to ensure 
peace and harmony between employers and employees in larger interest of 
society. 
Colliery B was taken-over by Central Coalfields Ltd (CCL) and 125 
workmen employed therein were employed as Civil Engineering Workers. 
Then·after, services of large number of workers employed in Colliery of CCL 
who had completed 240 days of attendance were regularized in pursuance of 
F 
the directions of the management. Civil Engineering Workers claimed that G 
they sho.uld be put on regular basis as casual labour and in course of time be 
regularised but instead of regularizing their services, they were retrenched. 
Industrial dispute was raised. Tribunal passed an award that the casual 
workers of Colliery B were entitled to the same benefit of regularization as 
given to those employed in Colliery of CCL. It directed to enlist 74 workers 
851 
H 
852 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
12006) 1 S.C.R. 
A as casual workers who justified their claim and be provided with different 
jobs in category-I and be regularised after they fulfilled condition of attendance 
in a year. 51 persons who were not granted any relief in the award filed writ 
petition and also the Management and labour union. Both the Single Judge 
and the Division Bench of High Court upheld the award. Hence, the present 
appeals. 
B 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. There is no reason to interfere with the findings of fact arrived 
at by the Tribunal and upheld by Single Judge and Division Bench of the High 
Court. The process of regularization which has already been initiated must 
C be completed as expeditiously as possible and the management is directed to 
submit a report to this Court regarding regularization of the workmen. 
(855-C, DI 
2.1. The main object of enacting Industrial and Labour laws is to ensure 
peace and harmony between the employers and the employees in the larger 
D interest of the society. The industrial growth leading to economic prosperity 
largely depends on happy and healthy relationship between employers and 
employees. It is also our bounded duty to give expression to the legislative 
intention for creating a healthy environment leading to proper understanding 
and cooperation and in true sense a partnership between the employers and 
E the employees in cases of industrial disputes. (856-A; 857-BI 
2.2. Security of tenure is essential for an employee so that he can give 
his best to the job. This object can be attained by regularization of the 
employees within a reasonable period. In the matter of regularization, the main 
concern of the Court is to see that the rule of law is respected and to ensure 
F that the executive acts fairly and give a fair deal to its employees consistent 
with the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. State being a 
model employer should not exploit the employees nor take advantage of 
helplessness and misery of either the unemployed person or the person 
concerned, as the case may be. Where a temporary or adhoc appointment is 
continued for long, the Court presumes that there is regular need for his 
Ci services on a regular post and accordingly considers regularization. 
(856-C, G, H; 857-AI 
Hindustun Antibiotics ltd. v. Workmen, AIR (1967) SC 948; Culcut:a 
l'orl Shramik Union v. Calcu//a R. T Association, AIR (1988) SC 2168; S.M 
Nilujkar and Urs. v. Telecom Distt. Ma
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.