WORKMEN CONCERNED, REPRESENTED BY THE BIHAR COLLIERY KAMGAR UNION versus BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 482 · Decided: 10-03-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
482 
• 
f,···~ 
WORKMEN CONCERNED, REPRESENTED BY THE BIHAR 
COLLIERY KAMGAR UNION 
v. 
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. AND ORS. 
March 10, 1978 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
Coking Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1972 Ss. 9 and 17, interpretation. 
The management of the New Dharmaband Colliery dismissed 40 workmen 
in October, 1969, and an industrial dispute sprung up and refere1.1ce followed 
in October, 1970. During the pendency of the enquiry by the Industrial Tr~ 
bunal, the Colliery was nationabsed with effect from May 1, 1972 as provided 
for in the Coking Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1972. The New Dharmaband 
Colliery vested in the Central Government and thereafter in the Bharat Olking 
Coal Company Ltd., that is respondent No. l. Section 9 of the Coking Coal 
Mines Nationalisation Act, 1972 detailed the Central Government not 
to be 
liable for prior liabilities. Section 17(1) enjoined that every employee who is 
a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and ha• 
been immediately before the appointed day in the employment of a mine shall 
become an employee in the Central Government. 
The Industrial Tribunal made an award on July 1, 1972, after impleading 
Bharat Coking Coal Company as a party holding that "the 
action of the 
management of New Dharmaband Colliery in dismissing the forty workmen with 
effect from 18th October, 1969 was not justified and that the •aid workmen 
should be reinstated with continuity of service by the mana,gement for the time 
being, na1nely, Bharat Coking Coal Company Ltd. and the said company shall 
be liable to pay their wages and other emoluments with effect from 1st May, 
1972. . ... The Management of New Dharmaband Colliery and Bharat Coking 
CC>al Co. Ltd. are jointly and severally liable to pay the sum to the workmen 
coocerned." 
The Bharat Coking Coal Company aggrieved by the directions 
invoked the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court, which quashed tbe award. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave and restoring tho award of the Indus-
trial Tribunal, the Court 
HE.LD: 
1. Section 17 of Coking Coal Mines Nationalisation Act. 1972 is 
a special provision relating to workmen and their continuance in -service not· 
withstanding the transfer from private ownership in the Central Government or 
Government Company. This is statutory protection for the workmen and is 
express, explicit and mandatory. 
Every person who is a workman withion the 
meaning of lnduotrial Disputes Act, 1947, and bas been immediately before the 
appointed day in the employment of a mine, shall become an employee of the 
Government or the Government Company a~d continue to do so as laid down 
in Section 17. A "workman" is defined in the Industrial Disputes Act to mean 
"~y person employed in any industry and include, any such person \Vho bas 
been dis1nissed and whose dismissal has led to a dispute". 
In the instant case, the forty workmen who were dismissed and whose dis· 
missal led to the industrial dispute are workmen within the meaning of s. 
17 
(1) of the Act. It is not open to MlY one to contood that because they have 
been wrongfully dismissed and, therefore, are not physically on the rolls on 
the date of the take over, they are not legally workmen under the new owner. 
[485 D-GJ 
H 
2. The subtle eye of the law transcends existence on the gras~~leveJ. The 
statutory continuity of service cannot be breached by the wrongful dismissal of 
the· prior employer, What matters is not physical presence on the rolls but the 
continuance in service in la.w because the dismissal in non est. 
The dismissal 
• \ 
' 
4. 
• • 
/ 
' \ 
' • 
BIHAR COLLIERY WORKMEN V. BHARAT COKING COAL483 
(Krishna Iyer, l.) 
has been set aside and the award expressly directs reinstatement wlth con1in~ity A 
of the service by the management for the time-being, nan1ely, the Bharat Coking 
Coal Company Ltd. The finding that the dismissal was wrongful has not been 
challenged, therefore, must stand. 
[485 G-H, 486 DJ 
Bihar State Road Transport Corporation v. The State of Bihar, 11970] 3 SCH. 
708 at p. 714, applied . 
3. Section 9(1) has nothing to do with wrongful dismissal aind awards·.for 
B 
reinstatement. Employees are not a liability. Section 9 ( 1) dea.!s with pec:un1ary 
and other liabilities and has nothing to do with workman. If at alt tt has 
anything to do with workman it is regarding arrears of wages or other con-
tractual, statutory or tortiow liabilities. [48
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.