JUDGMENT
R.K. Merathia, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 31.3.1993, passed in Reference Case No. 41 of 1988 by the Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad. The Tribunal heard four Reference Cases, including Reference Case No. 41 of 1988, or the preliminary point of maintainability and held that they are not maintainable in view of the Coal Mines Nationalization Law (Amendment) Act, 1986 (Amendment Act’ for Short).
2. The petitioner, an employee of Loyabad colliery, after due enquiry was dismissed on 6.4.1968 on the charge of defalcation of money, belonging to the Cooperative Stores of the Colliery. Under the Coal Mines Nationalization Act, 1973 (‘Nationalization Act’ for short), the Colliery was nationalized. It appears that a criminal case was also instituted against the petitioner regarding the said defalcation in which he was acquitted by judgment-dated 9.10.1980. The petitioner claims that he made a representation for his reinstatement as also for granting him other benefits on 5.12.1982 i.e. after two years of the said judgment of acquittal. Admittedly, the petitioner attained his age of superannuation on 60 years in 1987. Thereafter, he raised an Industrial dispute on 29.1.1988. On 10.2.1988 reference was made which was registered as Reference Case No. 41 of 1988. Thus, it is seen that he raised the dispute after 20 years of his dismissal and eight years after his acquittal and when he crossed the age of retirement.
3. On 15.12.1986 the Amendment Act was promulgated, which was made retrospective, i.e. with effect from the date of nationalization in this case 1.5.1973. For the sake of convenience, Section 14(1) of the Nationalization Act, as it originally stood, is reproduced hereunder:–
“Employment of Certain employees to continue–(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 coal mine 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 have vested under this Act, and shall hold office or service in the coal mine with the same rights to pension, gratuity and other matters as would have been admissible to him if the rights in relation to such coal mine had not been transferred to, and vested in, the Central Government or the government company, as the case may be, and continue to do so unless and until his employment in such coal mine is duly terminated or until his remuneration, terms and conditions of employment are duly altered by the Central Government or the government company”.
4. Under the Amendment Act, inter alia, Section 14 was deleted except retaining it’s Sub-section (4), Section 14 stood substituted with effect from 1.5.1973 as follows :
“14. Liability of officer or other employee of a coal mine for transfer to any other coal mine. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) or in any other law for the time being in force, the services of any officer or other employee employed in a coal mine shall be liable to be transferred to any other coal mine and such transfer shall notentitle such officer or other employee to any compensation under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and no such claim shall be entertained by any Court, Tribunal or other authority.”
5. Mr. M.K. Laik, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in view of the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of the Workmen v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, reported in 1978 LIC 709; and Full Bench of Patna High Court in, Agent Murlidhar Colliery of B.C.C.L. v. Shital Chandra Pathak and Ors., 1986 PLJR 1168, the petitioner, who was dismissed by the erstwhile management of the Colliery, will be deemed to be a workman under Section 14 of the Nationalization Act, as it stood prior to substitution. He further submitted that the management cannot take a plea that the petitioner was not on the rolls on the date of the take over of the management of the Colliery and, therefore, he is not legally a workman under the Government company. He also placed reliance on the judgment report in 1998 (3) PLJR 777, Workmen v. Employers in Re. Mge. of Ramkanali Collery. This judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court, as reported in (2001) 4 SCC 236, Ram-kanali Colliery v. Workmen. Counsel submitted that in view of the aforesaid judgments, reference is maintainable.
6. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 Management, submitted that the cases, relied upon by Mr. Laik, are not applicable to the rase on hand. He submitted that the effect of the Amendment Act, 1986 was not involved in the case, reported in 1986 PLJR 1168 (supra) and 1978 LIC 709 (supra). He further submitted that in the case, reported in 1978 LIC 709 (supra), industrial dispute regarding dismissal of workmen by the erstwhile owner of the Colliery was raised and an award was made before the colliery was nationalized- In that circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the statutory continuity of service cannot be breached by wrongful dismissal by the prior employer. Distinguishing the judgment reported in 1998 (3) PLJR 777 (supra), Mr. Mehta submitted that in that case industrial dispute was raised and the reference was made on 21.5.1986 i.e. prior to the promulgation of the Amendment Act. But in the present case, admittedly the petitioner raised the purported industrial dispute on 29.1.1988 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act. He further pointed out that the facts of the said case were also different, inasmuch as, the workmen were stopped from working by the erstwhile Management of the Colliery. But, in the present case, the workman was dismissed in the year 1968 but he raised the purported industrial dispute only in 1988. He submitted that in Ramkanali Collery case (2001) 4 SCC 236 (supra), the industrial dispute was pending when the Amendment Act was promulgated.
7. In the undisputed facts and circumstances of this case, it is not necessary to go into the question whether the Amendment Act is retrospective or not. The petitioner is claiming that the Amendment Act cannot take away his right which was available to him prior to the amendment. He is claiming protection under the un-amended provision, and is relying on the aforesaid judgments, which in my opinion, are of no help to the petitioner as noticed above. He did not raise industrial dispute when the protection as claimed was available to him prior to the Amendment Act. He was dismissed in 1968 by the erstwhile managements. He raised industrial dispute after 20 years in 1988, by which time, the Amendment Act came in 1986. Thus, no industrial dispute was raised or was pending when the Amendment Act was promulgated. In Ramkanali Colliery case (supra) the workmen were stopped from working; industrial dispute was raised; and the reference was made by the Government on 21.5.1986. The Amendment Act was promulgated on 15.12.1986. The award was made on 29.7,1987 holding that the workmen were wrongly stopped from working. The Supreme Court held in Ram Kanali Collery case (supra) that the Amendment Act was retrospective. However, that legal position was not applied in that case in view of the said findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal in that case.
8. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.