WORKMEN REPRESENTED BY AKHIL BHARTIYA KOYLA KAMGAR UNION versus EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF INDUSTRY COLLIERY OF M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD AND ORS

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 553 · Decided: 21-03-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

WORKMEN REPRESEN1ED BY AKHIL BHARTIYA KOYLA 
A 
:4 
KAMGAR UNION 
v. 
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF INDUSTRY 
COLLIERY OF MIS. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. AND ORS. 
MARCH 21, 2001 
B 
[S. RAJENDRABABU AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 : Sections 9 and 17. 
Workmen-Retrenchment of-Right to re-employment-Workmen of a c 
colliery laid off and retrenched-Subsequently, Colliery taken over and nation-
alised-But the new management refused to employ the workmen-Industrial 
Tribunal held that new management was not justified in refusing to employ the 
workmen and that the workmen had preference when fresh appointments were 
made-However, the High Court quashed the Tribunal's award-Correctness 
D 
of-Held: S. 9 of the Nationalisation Act does not cast an obligation to give 
pllferential re-employment to retrenched ivorkmen like S. 25-H of the ID Act-
Since there is identity of business new management is the successor-in-inter-
est-Hence, new management liable to give preferential employment to 
retrenched workmen under S. 17 of the Nationalisation Act-High .Court's 
onfer set aside and Tribunal's award restored-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, 
E 
s. 25-H. 
Wonll- and Phrases : 
'Successor-in-interest"-Meaning of-In the context of S. 9 of Coking 
F 
Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. 
The appellants-workmen of a colliery were laid off by the manage-
ment and retrenched. Subsequently, the colliery was taken over and 
nationalised under the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalio;ation) Act, 1972. But 
the respondent-management refused employment to the appellants and, 
G 
therefore, an industrial dispute was raised. The Industrial Tribunal held 
that the refusal to employ the appellants was not justified and that the 
~ 
appellants were entitled to preference in the matter of employment under 
Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the High 
Court set aside the award of the Tribunal. Hence this appeal. 
H 
553 
i 
554 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the respondent 
was neither the employer within the meaning of Section 25-H of the ID Act 
> 
nor was it successor-in-interest of the colliery in question and, therefore, 
B 
c 
liability to employ the appellants was that of the previous owner. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The claim made in the present case is one relating to 
employment under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which 
merely creates an obligation that a retrenche:l workman will have prefer-
ence when fresh appointments are made and an opportunity will have to 
be given to them to offer themselves for re-employment. Such an obliga· 
tion does not fall within the scope of Section 9 of the Coking Coal Mines 
(Nationalisation) Act, 1972. [557-F-G] 
2. Unlike civil law, industrial law takes a different view as to who is 
the successor who runs an industry subsequently. Where there is transfer 
D 
of business from one owner to another, the rights and obligations which 
existed between the old management and their workers continue to exist 
vis-a-vis the new management arter the date of the transfer provided there 
is continuity of service and identity of business. For the purposes of conti· 
nuity of service Section 17 of the Act makes the necessary provisions. Thus, 
E 
a person on such transfer becomes the owner of the concern and the 
employer of the employees of the establishment, and as along as there is 
identity of business itself and retains its identity, it must he held that the 
respondent is also a successor-in-interest to that extent. [ 558-C-E] 
Anakapalle Co-operative Agricultural andlruiustrial Society lJd v. Work-
F 
men, AIR (1963) SC 1489, teld inapplicable. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4964 of 1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated. 21.9.98 of the Patna High Court 
in C.W.J.C. No. 899 of 1989. 
Gobind Dass, S.B. Upadbyay, D.K. Verma, Ms. Mrinalini Padbi and 
Tathagat H. Vardbani for the Appellant. 
Ajit Kumar Sinha for the Respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
+ 
AKHJL BHARTIYA KOYLA KAMGAR UNION v. EMPLOYERS BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. [RA1ENDRA BABU, 1.] 
555 
RAJENDRA BABU, J. The management of the Bhugatdih Rise Area 
Colliery was taken over by the Central Government under the Coking Mines 
(Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971 which came into effect on October 17, 
1971. Subsequently, the Colliery stood nationali

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