- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Whether 'Appropriate Govt' In...
Whether 'Appropriate Govt' In Industrial Dispute Concerning Person Working At 'Mine Office' Is Centre Or State Depends On Nature Of Work: Gujarat HC
PRIYANKA PREET
14 July 2022 5:49 AM GMT
The Gujarat High Court has recently explained that when a dispute is raised by employees working in a mine or an office of the mine or ones employed in a mine, it needs to be determined whether the dispute has a nexus to activities in a mine. Only when the industrial dispute concerns a mine can the appropriate government be deemed to be the Central Government as per Sec 2(a) of...
The Gujarat High Court has recently explained that when a dispute is raised by employees working in a mine or an office of the mine or ones employed in a mine, it needs to be determined whether the dispute has a nexus to activities in a mine. Only when the industrial dispute concerns a mine can the appropriate government be deemed to be the Central Government as per Sec 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Bench explained.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav remarked,
"Merely because such workmen or employees are working in the "office of the mine" which may be on the surface of the mine by itself may not be a conclusive factor. What needs to be seen is the nature of work and the proximity and intimate relation to the mining operations."
The High Court elucidated this in the context of an Article 226 petition filed by the Petitioners to set aside the decision of the Labour Commissioner for seeking benefits as per a Government Resolution of 1988.
The Petitioners were working on a monthly rated basis for several years with the Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Limited. They claimed that they were discharging regular work and were being paid monthly and not regularly akin to the permanent workers. For making their claim for regular benefits, the Petitioners' union raised an industrial dispute relying on the resolution of 1988. The conciliation officer refused to adjudicate the dispute since he determined that he had no jurisdiction to conduct conciliation proceedings because it was the Central Government which was the 'appropriate government' as under the ID Act.
This issue was the subject of challenge in the instant petition. The Petitioners opposed the position that since the Petitioners were working under the Mines, the Central Government would be the appropriate government as under the Industrial Disputes Act and the Mines Act. They claimed that they were doing work of a clerical nature and were not connected with mines. Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation had several offices and therefore, the entire establishment could not be termed as a mine.
Reliance was placed on Sec 2(a) of the ID Act to distinguish between the term 'industrial dispute' and 'industry'. The definition clearly stated that when the industrial dispute concerned a mine, only then the appropriate government could be the Central Government. The Petitioners submitted that the definition of 'mines' had undergone 'a sea change' after the judgement in Serajuddin and Co versus Workmen, 1996 AIR (SC) 921.
Per contra, GMDC relied on Serajuddin case to argue that the Petitioners were engaged in activities directly incidental to or connected with mining operations. In the Serajuddin case as well the work consisted principally of sales operation which was connected to mining operations.
Justice Vaishnav noted that the Petitioners would sometimes work in the stores department and at other times worked at the plant for collecting samples, preparing plant reports etc. They were discharging work not directly connected to mining operations, per the Bench. Referring to the definition of the term 'mine' and 'appropriate government', the Bench questioned if the Petitioners were involved in activities such as handling and transport of minerals, development, repair, and maintenance of any machinery used in mine etc. The High Court also defined the term 'office of mine' as an 'office at the surface of the mine concerned.'
Perusing the Apex Court's judgement in Serajuddin, the High Court concluded thus:
"It may be that some of the work done in the office of the mine situated at the surface of the mine may be incidental to or connected with the mining operations for example keeping muster roll of workmen of payment register maintained by them. Clerks engaged in such type of work may be said to be persons employed in the mine but the same was wholly unconnected with the mining operations."
Attention was also drawn to Employers In Relation To The Management Of Jamadoba Colliery Of Tata Iron And Steel Company Limited v/s Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court No.1 to emphasise that the workmen therein had not made any contribution towards a job necessary to carry out something which was 'connected with' or 'incidental to' mining operations.
Keeping in view these decisions, the High Court directed that an enquiry should be made by the competent authority to determine whether the Petitioners were carrying out duties which had direct nexus or a proximate relationship to the activity of the mine. Merely because such workmen or employees had worked in the 'office of the mine' could not be a conclusive factor.
Accordingly, the impugned order of the Labour Commissioner was set aside and Respondent No. 3 was required to undertake a fresh decision after taking into account the issues raised in the judgement within eight weeks.
Case Title: RAJENDRASINH VELUBHA JADEJA v/s GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECT)
Case No.: C/SCA/1548/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 272
