Date of Judgment:
7th September 2021
Judges:
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Justice Hrishikesh Roy
Parties:
Appellant(S) - Employers in Relation to The Management of Bhalgora Area (Now Kustore Area) Of M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
Respondent (S) - Workmen Being Represented by Janta Mazdoor Sangh
Legal Provisions
- Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 – This Section defines a Government company. A Government company is one in which the Central Government, or any State Government or a combination of the two, owns not less than 50 percent of the paid-up capital.
- The Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 – This Act made it mandatory for employers to notify the Employment Exchanges of vacancies and file returns relating to their employment situation. The Act was enacted on 1st May 1960.
Overview
- The appellants are M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited's (BCCL) Bhalgora Area Management, a Central Government Undertaking. The BCCL decided to hire Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates as miners/loaders in 1986. As a result, the BCCL management requested the Employment Exchange for a list of eligible SC/ST candidates for appointment.
- The list did not include any of the 38 workers whose cases the respondent represents. The 38 job seekers allegedly colluded with a Dealing Assistant and a Personnel Manager of BCCL's Bhalgora Area to secure appointments. When these fraudulent appointments were discovered, the Dealing Assistant and the Personnel Manager were both dismissed. Also, the concerned miners/loaders and the beneficiaries of the fraudulent appointment process were dismissed.
- The respondent took the 38 workers' case to the Dhanbad Central Government Industrial Tribunal. It was concluded that no witnesses were examined to substantiate the charge of unmerited appointment secured by the workers. The Tribunal halted the termination orders and ordered the workers to be reinstated with 50% back wages.
- The management filed a writ petition challenging the Tribunal's finding and direction. The learned Single Judge noted that the lists sent by Employment Exchange were on record before the Tribunal. The names in the lists were checked, and the litigating workers were not found. It was concluded that based on the evidence, the Tribunal erroneously answered the management's reference. The reinstatement order for the workers was thus deemed unjust.
- Dissatisfied with the learned Single Judge's decision, the Union appealed to the High Court. As a result of the management's perceived inability to justify the termination orders, the Division Bench ordered in favour of the appointees.
- Hence, the appeal had been preferred by the management before the Supreme Court. It was against the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand.
Issues
- Whether the High Court's reversal of the order given by the learned Single Judge was justified?
Judgment
- While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court noted that two opposing projections could not judge the appointment's legitimacy. If either has been accepted, the other has to be rejected. Accordingly, the appointees failed to establish their legitimacy and should be immune from interference.
- It was further stated that the Division Bench neglected the workmen's questionable recruitment practices. The workers' names were not on the Employment Exchange's lists, so that the appointments would be against the 1959 Act.
- It was noted that the appellant, as a Government Undertaking, is also required by the 1959 Act to make all appointments through the Employment Exchange but not for the 38 litigating workers.
- The Court also stated that the Tribunal erroneously answered the reference against the management. With the whole process, the Tribunal unfairly halted the management's efforts to right the wrongs of the two delinquent employees.
- The Court was also of the view that they were not on any of the lists sponsored by the jurisdictional Employment Exchange. They were beneficiaries of a fraudulent process, which the impugned judgment should not have overruled. In any case, the appointments violated the 1959 Act.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court stated that a court of law would not tolerate fraudulent practices to gain public employment. The workers who defrauded the Government Undertaking must not be allowed to enjoy their ill-gotten gains. To preserve the integrity of public employment as a source of social welfare and mobility, it must be protected from manipulation and corruption.
The Court considered that desperate job seekers often resort to such measures to compete for limited vacancies. Still, the Court cannot condone false projections to circumvent the statutory appointment procedure. Hence, the reversal of the learned Single Judge's order was found to be unjustified. As a result, the appeal was allowed. The LPA judgment was set aside, and the learned Single Judge's decision was reinstated.
Questions:
What is the Janta Mazdoor Sangh?
Which Section of the Companies Act, 1956 defines a Government Company?
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
