http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: WORKMEN CONCERNED, REPRESENTED BY THE BIHARCOLLIERY KAMGAR U

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.  AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/03/1978

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. SINGH, JASWANT

CITATION:  1978 AIR  979            1978 SCR  (3) 482  1978 SCC  (2) 175

ACT: Coking  Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1972 Ss. 9  and  17, interpretation.

HEADNOTE: The  management of the New Dharmaband Colliery dismissed  40 workmen  in October, 1969, and an industrial dispute  sprung up  and  reference followed in October,  1970.   During  the pendency  of  the enquiry by the  Industrial  Tribunal,  the Colliery  war, nationalised 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 Coking Coal  Company Ltd., that is respondent No. 1. 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  has 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  said workmen  should be reinstated with continuity of service  by the  management  for the time being, namely,  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 Coal Co. Ltd. are jointly  and  severally liable to pay the sum to the work-men concerned." The Bharat Coking Coal Company aggrieved by the directions invoked  the Writ  Jurisdiction  of  the High Court,  which  quashed  the award. Allowing the appeal by special leave and restoring the award of the Industrial Tribunal, the Court HELD  : 1. Section 17 of Coking Coal  Mines  Nationalisation Act,  1972  is a special provision relating to  workmen  and their  continuance in service notwithstanding  the  transfer from   private  ownership  in  the  Central  Government   or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

Government  Company.  This is statutory protection  for  the workmen  and  is  express, explicit  and  mandatory.   Every person  who  is a workman within the meaning  of  Industrial Disputes  Act,  1947, and has been  immediately  before  the appointed  day in the employment of a mine, shall become  an employee  of  the Government or the Government  Company  and continue  to do so Is laid down in Section 17.  A  "workman" is defined in the Industrial Disputes Act to mean any person employed  in any industry and include, any such  person  who has  been  dismissed  and  whose  dismissal  has  led  to  a dispute". In  the instant case, the forty workmen who  were  dismissed and  whose  dismissal  led to  the  industrial  dispute  are workmen  within the meaning of s. 17 (1) of the Act.  It  is not  open to any one to contend 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-C] 2.   The  subtle eye of the law transcends existence on  the grass-level.  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 law because the dismissal in  non est.  The dismissal 483 has   been  set  aside  and  the  award  expressly   directs reinstatement   with  continuity  of  the  service  by   the management  for  the time-being, namely, the  Bharat  Coking Coal  Company  Ltd.   The finding  that  the  dismissal  was wrongful  has  not been challenged, therefore,  must  stand. [485 G-H, 486 D] Bihar  State  Road Transport Corporation v.,  The  State  of Bihar, [1970] 3 SCR 708 at p. 714, applied. 3.  Section 9(1) has nothing to do with  wrongful  dismissal and   awards  for  reinstatement.   Employees  are   not   a liability.   Section  9(1) deals with  pecuniary  and  other liabilities  and has nothing to do with workman.  If at  all it  has anything to do with workman it is regarding  arrears of  wages  or  other  contractual,  statutory  or   tortuous liabilities. [486 F-G] 4.  Section 9(2) operates only in the area of  section  9(1) and  starts off by saying "for the removal of doubts  it  is hereby  declared..  .." Section 9(2) seeks  only  to  remove doubts in the area covered by s. 9(1) and does not deal with any other topic or subject matter.  Section 9(2)(b) when  it refers  to  .awards’ goes along with the word  "decree?.  or ’order.   By the canon of construction of  noscitura  sociis the  expression  "award"  must have  a  restricted  meaning. Moreover, its scope is delimited by s. 9(1).  If back  wages before  the appointed day have been awarded or  other  sums, accrued  prior to nationalisation, have been directed to  be paid to any workman by the new owner, section 9(2)(b)  makes such  claims  non-enforceable.   Section  9(2)(b)  does  not nullify  a. 17(1) as they operate indifferent  fields.   The whole  provision confers immunity against liability,  not  a right  to jettison workman under the employ of the  previous owner in the eye of law. [486 G-H 487 A-B]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  2775  of 1977. (Appeal  by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order  dated 20-2-1976  of the Patna High Court in S.W.J.C. No.  1314  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

1972). Somnath Chatterjee, D. P. Mukherjee & .4. K. Ganguly for the Appellant. Sarjoo Prasad,M.  L. Varma for Respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J.-The correct interpretation of section 9  of the Coking Coal Mines Nationalisation Act,1972, (for  short, the  Act),  read along with Section 17 settles the  fate  of this appeal by special leave.  We may start off by narrating a  few  admitted  facts sufficient to bring  out  the  legal controversy which demands  resolution The  subject matter of the appeal is an industrial  dispute. The management of the New Dharmaband (Colliery dismissed  40 workmen  in October, 1969, and an industrial dispute  sprung up and reference followed in October, 1970.  The  Industrial Tribunal held an elaborate enquiry into the dispute and made an award on July 1, 1972. In the meanwhile, the Colliery was nationalised with  effect from  May  1, 1972, as provided for in the  fact.   The  New Dharmaband  Colliery ’vested in the Central  Government  and thereafter   in   the  Bharat  Coking  Coal   Company   Ltd. Apparently by order of the Tribunal dated 24th March,  1972, the  successor Company namely, the Bharat Coking  Coal  Ltd. (the respondent) was impleaded as a party.  Thus, 484 with the previous owner of the colliery and the nationalised industry namely, the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, on record,  the Tribunal made the following award               "The   action   of  the  management   of   New               Dharmaband  Colliery in dismissing  the  forty               workmen  mentioned in the Scheme  with               effect  from  the 18th October,  1969  is  not               justified.    The  said  workmen  are  to   be               reinstated  with continuity of service by  the               management  for  the time being,  namely,  the               Bharat  Coking  Coal Co. Ltd.,  and  the  said               company shall be liable to pay their wages and               other, emoluments with effect from the 1st  of               May, 1972the    management   of   the    New               Dharmaband Collieryand  Bharat  Coking  Coal               Co. Ltd. are jointly and severliable  to  pay               the same to the workmen concerned." The  first  respondent was made liable for,back  wages  with effect  from  the date of nationalisation  when  the  right, title and interest in the Colliery vested in it.  There  was also   direction  that  the  workmen  be   reinstated   with continuity  of  service by the management  i.e.,  the  first respondent,  for  the time being.  Aggrieved by  both  these directions,  the  Bharat Coking  Coal  Company  successfully invoked  the  Writ  Jurisdiction of the  High  Court,  which quashed  the award.  Thereupon the workmen came up  to  this Court challenging the soundness of the legal position  which appealed to the High Court. Section 9 of the Act deserves to be reproduced at this stage "9.  Central  Government not to be liable for  prior  liabi- lities 9(1)   Every  liability  of the owner   agent,  manager,  or managing  contractor  of  a coking coal mine  or  coke  oven plant, in relation to any period prior to the appointed day, shall  be  the liability of such owner,  agent,  manager  or managing  Contractor,  as  the case may  be,  and  shall  be enforceable   against  him  and  not  against  the   Central Government or the Government company. 9 (2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that- (a)  save  as otherwise provided elsewhere in this  act,  no

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

claim for wages bonus, royalty, rate, rent, taxes, provident fund,  pension, gratuity or any other dues in relation to  a coking coal mine or coke oven plant in respect of any period prior to the appointed day, shall be enforceable against the Central or the Government Company. (b)...................... (c)......................".  485 Side by side we may also read section 17(1) :               "17(1)  Every person who is a  workman  within               the meaning of the industrial Disputes  Act,               1947,  and  has been, immediately  before  the               appointed  day, in the employment of a  coking               coal mine or coke oven Plant, shall become  on               and from the appointed day, an employee of the               Central Government, or, as the case may be, of               the  Government  company in which  the  right,               title and interest of such mine or plant  have               vested  under this Act, and shall hold  office               or  service  in the coking coal mine  or  coke               oven  plant, as the, case may be, on the  same               terms and conditions and with the same  rights               to  pension,  gratuity and  other  matters  as               would  have  been  admissible to  him  if  the               rights in relation to such coking coal mine or               coke  oven plant had not been  transferred  to               and  vested  in  the-  Central  Government  or               Government  company, as the case may  be,  and               continue  to  do  so  unless  and  until   his               employment  in such coking coal mine  or  coke               oven  plant  is duly terminated or  until  his                             remuneration,  terms  and  conditions  of   em -               ployment  are  duly altered,  by  the  Central               Government or the Government company." Section  17 is a special provision relating to  workmen  and their  continuance in service notwithstanding  the  transfer from   private  ownership  to  the  Central  Government   or Government  company.  This is the -statutory protection  for the  workmen and is express, explicit and mandatory.   Every person who is a Workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes  Act,  1947, and has been, immediately  before  the appointed day, in the employment of a mine, shall become  an employee  of  the Government or the Government  company  and continue to do so as laid down in Section 17.  A ’workman is defined  in the Industrial Disputes Act to mean  any  person employed in any industry (we omit the unnecessary words) and includes,  any such person who has been dismissed and  whose dismissal has led to a dispute.  It is Perfectly Plain  that the  40 workmen who were dismissed and whose ,dismissal  led to  the industrial dispute are ’workmen’ within the  meaning of  section  17(1)  of the  Act.   Irrefutably  follows  the inference  that they are workmen entitled to continuance  in service  as provided for in Section 17.  It is not  open  to any  lone to contend that because they had  been  wrongfully dismissed, and therefore, are not physically on the rolls on the date of the takeover, they are not legally workmen under the  new  owner.   The subtle eye  of  the  law  transcends, existence  on the grass level.  The statutory continuity  of service  cannot.  be breached by the wrongful  dismissal  of the.  prior employer.  It is important that   dismissed  has been set aside and the award expressly directs reinstatement "with  continuity of service by the management for the  time being  namely,  the  Bhamt Coking  Coal  Company  Ltd."  The finding  that  the  dismissal  was  wrongful  has  not  been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

challenged  and, therefore, must stand.  The Court in  Bihar State Road Transport 486 "Corporation(1)  had  to deal with a  wrongful  dismissal  a direction  for  instatement by an award and  a  transfer  of ownership  from  a  private operator to  a  State  Transport Corporation.  Shelat J, observed               "The  argument,  however, was  that  the  true               meaning  of  the said averment was  that  only               those of the employees of the Rajya  Transport               Authority who were actually on its rolls  were               taken over and not those who were deemed to be               on  its rolls.  It is difficult to  understand               the  distinction  sought to  be  made  between               those  whose names were actually on the  rolls               and  those whose names, though not  physically               on the rolls, were deemed in law to be on  the               rolls.  If respondent 3 continued in law to be               in  the  service, it makes  little  difference               whether his name actually figured in the rolls               or  not.   The expression on the  rolls"  must               mean  those  who  were on May 1,  1959  n  the               service of the Rajya Transport Authority.   By               reason  of  the  Order  discharging  him  from               service  being illegal, respondent 3  was  and               must  be regarded to be in the service of  the               said Authority, and therefore, he would be one               of those whose services were taken over by the               appellant corporation." The  present  one  is  a fortiori case.   We  have  not  the slighest doubt hat what matters is not the physical presence on  the rolls but the continuance in service in law  because the dismissal is non est. Sri  Sarjoo Prasad pressed into service section 9(2) of  the Act to repel the contention of the workmen set out  above.It is true that section 9(2).....  (b) declares that "no  Award of any Tribunal     passed  after the appointed day, but  in relation to, any  dispute which arose before that day, shall be  enforce  able  against the  Central  Government  or  the Government  company".   Superficially read and torn  out  of context, there may be some re......semblance of substance in the submission.A closer look at section 9....as   a   whole, contradicts this conclusion. Section  9 deals with the topic of Prior liabilities of  the previous  owner. Section 9(1) speaks of "every liability  of the owner......to the, appointed day, shall be the liability of  such owner..........Prior shall be  enforceable  against him   and  not  against  the  Central   Government  or   the Government Company. The inference isirresistible    that Section 9(1) has nothing to do with wrongful dismissals and’ awards for reinstatement.  Employees are not a liability (as yet in our country).  Section 9(1) deals with precuinary and liabilities  and has nothing to do with workmen  at  all  it has  anything to do with workmen it is regarding arrears  of wages   or   other  contractual,   statutory   or   tortuous liabilities.   Section  9(2) operates only in  the  area  of section  9(1) and that is why it starts off by  saying  ’for the,"  ’Section 9(2) removal of doubts it is hereby  declare seeks  only to remove doubts in the area covered by  section 9(1)  and  does  not deal with any other  topic  or  subject matter.  Section (1)  [1970] (3) S.C.R. 708 at p. 714.  487 9  (2) (b) when it refers to ’awards’, goes along  with  the words ’decree’, or ’Order.  By the canon of construction  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

noscitur  a  sociis  the  expression  ’award’  must  have  a restricted  meaning.   Moreover, its scope is  delimited  by section  9(1).  If back wages before the appointed day  have been    awarded   or   other   sums,   accrued   prior    to nationalisation,  have  been  directed to  be  paid  to  any workmen by the new owner, section 9(2)(b) makes such  claims non-enforceable.   We  do not see any reason  to  hold  that section  9(2)  (b) nullifies section 17(1) or has  a  larger operation  than section 9(1).  We are clear that  the  whole provision confers immunity against liability, not a right to jettison  workmen under the employ of the previous owner  in the eye of law. We hold that the High Court fell into an error in  following a  different line of reasoning.  The appeal deserves  to  be and  is  hereby  allowed and the  award  of  the  Industrial Tribunal  restored.   The, appellants shall  receive  costs. from the first respondent, which we quantify at Rs. 2000/’-. S. R.                             Appeal allowed. 488