Kiran Raj

The single bench of the Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, in its judgement by Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary, has set aside the award granted by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No.1, Dhanbad, in Reference No.13 of 2017. The case revolved around whether 414 ex-employees of Hindustan Copper Limited (HCL), who were separated under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) due to the closure of mines, were entitled to arrears of wages arising from a subsequent pay revision.

The petitioner, representing the management of Hindustan Copper Limited, challenged the award issued by the Tribunal on 28.09.2022. The Tribunal had stated in favor of the respondent, Ex-Employees’ Coordination Committee, Mosabani, holding that the 414 workmen, who opted for voluntary retirement, were entitled to arrears of wages resulting from the subsequent wage revision.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes Culpable Homicide Charge Against Doctor For Patient's Death After Nurse's Injection Over Phone Instruction, Directs Trial For Negligence

The reference made to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication was:

"Whether the ex-employees of M/s. HCL who were separated under the VR scheme due to closure of mines are entitled to arrears of wages arising out of subsequent pay/wage revision?"

The petitioner-management contended that:

1. The Ex-Employees' Coordination Committee, Mosabani, was not a recognized trade union or a registered entity under the Trade Union Act. It was argued that the committee had no legal standing to represent the ex-employees before the Tribunal.

2. The reference was challenged on the grounds that it did not mention the names of the concerned workmen, making the claim indefinite and unenforceable.

3. The management asserted that employees who opted for voluntary retirement had accepted all terminal benefits, thereby relinquishing any subsequent claims. The wage revision, though effective from a date prior to their retirement, was not applicable to employees who had already separated under the VRS.

4. The petitioner stated that no supporting documents proving the authorization of the Ex-Employees’ Coordination Committee to act on behalf of the workmen were produced.

Conversely, the respondents argued that:

1. The ex-employees were on the rolls of HCL as of 01.11.1997, making them eligible for wage revision benefits.

2. The management's own circular, dated 20.02.1995, stated that "all employees who have retired/will be retiring under the Company's Voluntary Retirement Scheme will be entitled to wage revision/pay revision benefits as and when the same is finalized."

3. The Tribunal's decision was legally sound as it was based on documentary evidence and precedents where similar claims were upheld.

The High Court found multiple deficiencies in the Tribunal's award.

1. Absence of Legal Representation for Workmen

• The court observed that there was no evidence proving that the Ex-Employees' Coordination Committee, Mosabani, was a legally recognized body authorized to represent the ex-employees. The vakalatnama filed by Sujit Kumar Shaw was in his individual capacity, and there was no proof that he was representing the entire group of workmen.

2. Failure to Substantiate the Claims

• The court recorded: "At no point of time the ex-employees appeared before the learned Industrial Tribunal to put on record the foundational facts regarding their voluntary retirement or even to suggest that they were being represented by Sujit Kumar Shaw or the respondent (Ex-Employees’ Coordination Committee, Mosabani)."

• The court noted that neither the voluntary retirement scheme details nor individual separation letters were exhibited as evidence.

3. Perverse Findings by the Tribunal

• The High Court found that the Tribunal had accepted the list of 414 workmen forwarded by the Ministry as a part of the reference without verifying the authenticity of claims. The court held: "Further, neither the list nor the date of voluntary retirement of 414 ex-employees mentioned in the list was exhibited before the learned Industrial Tribunal."

• This lack of proper examination led the High Court to conclude that the Tribunal's decision was legally unsustainable.

Aslo Read: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue’s AMP Adjustment: Holds That ‘Mere Relationship’ and ‘Excessive Expenditure’ Do Not Constitute an International Transaction

The Jharkhand High Court, setting aside the Tribunal's award, remanded the matter back for fresh consideration with the following directives:

• Notices are to be issued to all 414 ex-employees mentioned in the Ministry's list, or their legal heirs, to appear before the Industrial Tribunal.

• The ex-employees may represent themselves or authorize a legally recognized union/body.

• The petitioner-management and Sujit Kumar Shaw are directed to appear before the Industrial Tribunal on 15.04.2025 at 11:00 AM.

• The Tribunal must pass a fresh award based on admissible evidence and legal principles.

Advocates Representing the Parties

 For the Petitioner (Hindustan Copper Limited): Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate, and Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate.

For the Respondent (Ex-Employees' Coordination Committee, Mosabani): Mrs. M.M. Pal, Senior Advocate, Ms. Ruby Pandey, Advocate.

Amicus Curiae: Ms. Apoorva Singh, Advocate.

Case Title: Employer in relation to the Management of Hindustan Copper Limited v. Ex-employees’ Coordination Committee, Mosabani

Case Number: W.P.(L) No. 406 of 2023

Bench: Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

[Read/Download order]