# • f,···~ WORKMEN CONCERNED, REPRESENTED BY THE BIHAR COLLIERY KAMGAR UNION v. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1978] 3 S.C.R. 482
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1978-03-10
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2775 of 1977
- **Bench:** V. R. Krishna Iyer, Jaswant Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/f-workmen-concerned-represented-by-the-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-v-bharat-7351
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

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 Industrial 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)

## Text

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 Industrial 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 contractual, statutory or tortiow liabilities. [486 F-G]
4. Section 9(2) operates only in the area of section 9(1) and ~tarts off
by saying "for the removal of doubts it is hereby declared .... " Sec41on 9(2)
ieeks only w remove doubts in the area covered by s. 9(1) and does not deal
with any other topi_c or subject matter.
&.,;:ction 9(2) (b) when it refers to
C
'awards' goes along wi,th the word "decre'e''r or 'order'. By the
cano1~ of
construction of noscitura sociis the expression "award" must have a restncted
meani.,1g.
Moreover, its scope is delimited bys. 9(1). If bac~ wages be.fore _the
appointed day have been awarded or other sums, μccrucd pnor to nauonah.satiou, have been directed to be paid -to any workman by the new owner, secti.on
9(2)(b) makes such claims non-enforceable. Section 9(2)(b) does not nulbfy
s. 17 (1) ais they operate in different 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, 437 A-B]
D
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 1972).
Somnath Chatterjee, D. P. Mukherjee & A. K. Ganguly for the
Appellant.
Sarjoo Prasad, M. L. Varrna for Respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Coun 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 appe;I by speciai
leave.
We may start off by narrating a few admitted facts sufficient to
bring out the legal controversy which demands resolntion.
The subject matter of the appeal is an industrial dispnte.
The
~anagement of the New Dharmaband Colliery dismissed 40 workmen
m Octob~r, 1969, and an indnstrial dispnte sprung np and reference
followed m October, 1970.
The Industrial Tribnnal held an elaborate enquiry into the dispute and made an award on Jnly 1, 197] .
In the meanwhile, the Colliery was nationalised with effect from
Ma)'. 1, 1972, .as provided for in the Act. The New Dhannaband
Coll~ery vested m the Central Government and thereafter in the Bharat
Coking Coal Company Ltd.
Apparently by order of the
Tribunal
date? 24th March, 1972, the snccessor Company namely, the Bharat
Cokmg Coal Ltd. (the respondent) was impleaded as a party. Thus,
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
484
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 3 S.C.R.
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
Schedule 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, 1972. . . . . . the
management of the New Dharmaband Colliery and Bharat
Coking Coal Co. Ltd. are jointly and severally liable 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
tl1e
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 liabilities :
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 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) ........ ".
•
• \
/ )--
•
•
t
• •
I
l
-
' •
BIHAR COLLIERY WORKMEN v. BHARAT COKING COAL 485
.
(Krishna Iyer,!.)
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 Govermnent comP_any in which !lie
right, title and interest of such mme or plant h~ve
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 Govermnent or Government
company, as the case may be, and continue to do so
unless and nntil his employment in such coking coal
mine or coke oven plant is duly
terminated
or
until his remuneration, terms and conditions of employment are duly altered, by the Central Government or the Government company."
Section 17 is a special provision relating to workmen and their cont!-
nuance in service notwithstanding the transfer from private ownership
to the Central Government or Government company.
This
is
a
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 indnstrial 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 one to contend that because they
bad 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
that dismissal has been set aside and the
award
expressly directs
reinstatement "with continuity of 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 and,
therefore, must stand.
The Court in Bihar State . Road Transport
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
486
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 3 S.C.R.
C?rporation(') had to deal with a wrongfuf dismissal, a direction for
remstatement by an award and a transfer of ownership from a private
operator to a State Transport Corporation. Shela! 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 Jaw to be on the rolls. 1f respondent 3 continned 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 in the service of the Rajya Transport Authority.
By reason of the order discharging him
from service being illegal, respondent 3 was and mnst 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
that what matters is not the physical presence on the rolls but the
continuance in service in Jaw because the dismiss~! 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 enforceable against the Central Government or the Government company".
Superficially read and torn out of context, there may be some resemblance 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 ..... .
prior to th~. appoinbw day, shall be the liability of such owner ..... .
and shall be enforceable against him and not against the Central
Government or the Government Company". The inference is irresistible 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 pecnniary and other lia_timties
and has nothing to do with workmen.
If at all it has anythit1g to do
with workmen it is regarding arrears of wages or other contractual.
statutory or tortious liabilities.
Section 9(2) operates only in the
area of section 9 (1) and that is whv it starts off hy saying "For the
removal of doubts it is hereby declared ........ ". Section
9(?,)
seeks only to· remove doubts in the area covered bv section 9(1)
and does not deal with any other topic or subject matter.
Sectiorr
(I) [1970) (3) S.C.R. 708 at p. 714.
•
'
/•
/
(
•
•
/o-.
I
,
' '
' •
•
•
BIHAR COLLIERY WORKMEN V. BHARAT COKING COAL 487
(Krishna Iyer,/.)
9(2) (.b) when it refers to 'awards', goes along with the words 'decree',
A
or 'order'. By the canon of construction of noscitur a sociis the eK
pression 'award' must have a restricted meaning. Moreover, its scope
is delimited by section 9 ( 1). If back wages before the appointee\ 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)
B·
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 held 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 cost' from the first respondent, which we quantify
at
Rs. 2000/-.
S. R.
Appeal allowed.
c