{"id":127589,"date":"2005-02-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-02-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005"},"modified":"2018-10-06T04:14:25","modified_gmt":"2018-10-05T22:44:25","slug":"employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005","title":{"rendered":"Employers,Mgmt., M. Colliery M\/S &#8230; vs Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union &#8230; on 22 February, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Employers,Mgmt., M. Colliery M\/S &#8230; vs Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union &#8230; on 22 February, 2005<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Hegde<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3439 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nEmployers,Mgmt., M. Colliery M\/s BCCL Ltd. \t\t \t\t\t    \n\nRESPONDENT:\nBihar Colliery Kamgar Union Through: Workmen\t\t\t          \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/02\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nN. Santosh Hegde &amp; S.B. Sinha \n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nWITH<\/p>\n<p>C.A. NO.  1347 OF 2005<br \/>\n(arising out of SLP (C) No. 1195 of 2004)<\/p>\n<p>SANTOSH HEGDE, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Management of Muriadih colliery of M\/s BCC Ltd.<br \/>\nis in appeal against the award made by the Central Industrial<br \/>\nTribunal (No.2), Dhanbad  dated 11th of October, 1991 in an<br \/>\nindustrial dispute referred to it under Section 10 of the<br \/>\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBy the said award the Tribunal upholding the misconduct<br \/>\nof the two workmen set aside the punishment of dismissal  and<br \/>\ndirected reinstatement of the said workmen without payment of<br \/>\nback wages and with permanent stoppage of one increment.<br \/>\nThe Tribunal also directed the workmen to give the continuity<br \/>\nof their service.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe writ petition filed by the Management as against the<br \/>\nsaid reduction in sentence before the learned Single Judge and<br \/>\nan appeal before the Division Bench of the Patna High Court<br \/>\nhaving been dismissed, the Management appellant is in appeal<br \/>\nbefore us.\n<\/p>\n<p>The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal<br \/>\nare as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe two workmen were working as Pump Operator and<br \/>\nTrammer respectively under the management of  Muriadih<br \/>\ncolliery of M\/s BCC Ltd. .  On 11.5.1983 at about 11.15 a.m.  a<br \/>\nmob consisting of about 200 persons variously armed with<br \/>\ndeadly weapons like lathi, Bhalla, bow and arrow came to the<br \/>\noffice premises of General Manager, Barora area and amongst<br \/>\nthem the two respondent workmen attacked Shri H.N. Tripathi,<br \/>\nthe General Manager of the area with a lathi on his head  as a<br \/>\nresult of which he sustained bleeding injury and he had to be<br \/>\nadmitted to a hospital.   These workmen with the rest of the<br \/>\nmob further assaulted other officers of Barora area including<br \/>\none Shri K.K. Khadia, Area Manager, Personnel, Shri K.<br \/>\nBhardwaj, Inspector CISF, Sher Singh, Havaldar  and Bhim<br \/>\nSingh.  The motive for the said attack is stated to be an accident<br \/>\nthat occurred previously in regard to bursting of a water tank<br \/>\ncausing death of two persons.\n<\/p>\n<p>A show cause notice was issued to these workmen to<br \/>\nreply and the explanation submitted by the workers was not<br \/>\nfound satisfactory.  In the domestic inquiry that was conducted<br \/>\nthe respondent workmen were found guilty of misconduct<br \/>\ncharged against them and on the recommendation of the Inquiry<br \/>\nOfficer the services of the concerned workmen were terminated<br \/>\nw.e.f. 14.11.1984.\n<\/p>\n<p>The said order of dismissal after inquiry gave rise to an<br \/>\nindustrial dispute as stated above. In the industrial dispute the<br \/>\nworkmen challenged the fairness and validity of the domestic<br \/>\ninquiry. The Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the<br \/>\ninquiry conducted was not fair, gave opportunity to lead<br \/>\nevidence to the parties and after considering the material<br \/>\nproduced in the said inquiry came to the conclusion that the<br \/>\nalleged incident of assault by the  workers was proved and the<br \/>\ntwo workmen concerned found guilty of the misconduct alleged<br \/>\nagainst them.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHaving taken into consideration the gravity of the<br \/>\noffence of physical assault on the Managing Staff of the colliery<br \/>\nwith deadly weapons and causing injuries to them and having<br \/>\ncome to the conclusion that the Management  has been able to<br \/>\nprove most of the charge leveled against the workmen, the<br \/>\nTribunal proceeded to interfere with the punishment of<br \/>\ndismissal observing thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;I am to hold further that the concerned<br \/>\nworkmen were members of the mob and they also<br \/>\ncaused injury to Shri Tripathy and others.  But<br \/>\ndefinitely they had never intended to kill Shri<br \/>\nTripathy as held above.  Since there was casually<br \/>\non account of bursting of water tank it was natural<br \/>\nfor the workmen in general to go in agitation<br \/>\nagainst the management and at that time the mob is<br \/>\nmostly guided by their own emotions and feelings.<br \/>\nIn the circumstances of the case I am of the view<br \/>\nthat the punishment of dismissal will be harsh<br \/>\npunishment which definitely amount to hanging of<br \/>\nan accused after criminal trial.  For causing simple<br \/>\nhurt even to the high officials like the General<br \/>\nManager the workmen should not be dismissed<br \/>\nrather some alternative punishment like stoppage<br \/>\nof increment which is also one of the major<br \/>\npenalty should be inflicted.  I also find that there is<br \/>\nno previous history of any such act on the part of<br \/>\nthe concerned workmen.  In the circumstances, I<br \/>\nfeel that the needs of justice can be met by<br \/>\nreinstating the concerned workmen in their service<br \/>\nwithout payment of back wages and with<br \/>\npermanent stoppage of one increment.  However,<br \/>\nthey will get continuity of their service.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>As stated above being aggrieved by the interference with<br \/>\nthe punishment  awarded by the Management after coming to<br \/>\nthe conclusion  that the misconduct alleged is established, the<br \/>\nappellant preferred writ petition before the Ranchi Bench of the<br \/>\nPatna High Court.  The learned Single Judge of the Patna High<br \/>\nCourt dismissed the said writ petition agreeing with the finding<br \/>\nof the Tribunal observing thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Certainly the assault to the senior officials<br \/>\nthat too in the rank of General Manager by the<br \/>\nworkmen in discharge of their duties is a gross<br \/>\nmisconduct and in such a situation officials who<br \/>\nare managing the affairs are being demoralised.<br \/>\nBut in the instant case the Tribunal has recorded a<br \/>\nfinding that there was a mitigating circumstance<br \/>\nand the action of the two workmen were neither<br \/>\ndeliberate or intentional but it was in a sudden spur<br \/>\nof the moment overwhelmed by the mob mentality<br \/>\nthe workmen assaulted these senior officials only<br \/>\nfor the reason that on the same day there was a<br \/>\nbursting of a tank in which some workmen died in<br \/>\nthe accident which created an impression to the<br \/>\nfellow workers that due to negligence on the part<br \/>\nof the Management, such accident took place.  So<br \/>\nfar the aforesaid reason alone, this occurrence took<br \/>\nplace and it is not a case of personal vendetta or a<br \/>\ngross act of in discipline or insubordination.  In<br \/>\nthat view of the matter, the Tribunal was perfectly<br \/>\njustified in modifying the extreme punishment of<br \/>\ndismissal and both the workmen though definitely<br \/>\nguilty, were also awarded sufficient punishment as<br \/>\nno back wages were awarded also an increment<br \/>\nwas withheld.  In that view of the matter and in<br \/>\nsuch mitigating circumstance, I am not inclined to<br \/>\ninterfere with the order of the Tribunal.<br \/>\nAccordingly this Writ application is dismissed, but<br \/>\nwithout costs.&#8221;(Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>\tThe appeal filed against the said order before the<br \/>\nDivision Bench of the Jharkhand High Court also having failed<br \/>\non the same ground as stated above,  the appellant is before us.<br \/>\nThe only question for our consideration in this appeal is<br \/>\nwhether the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the<br \/>\nquantum of punishment awarded by the Management after<br \/>\ncoming to the conclusion that the finding of the domestic<br \/>\ninquiry was fair and legal or whether the so called mitigating<br \/>\ncircumstances  recorded by the Tribunal would be a sufficient<br \/>\nground to reinstate the concerned workmen.<br \/>\nShri A. Sharan, Addl. Solicitor General  appearing for the<br \/>\nManagement contended that  the accident on the previous day<br \/>\nhad nothing to do with the General Manager and others  who<br \/>\nwere assaulted and assault in question did not  take place<br \/>\nimmediately after  that accident but was a premeditated attack<br \/>\nwith deadly weapons causing grievous injuries (according to<br \/>\nthe learned counsel).  The learned  Addl. Solicitor General<br \/>\npointed out that the mitigating circumstances recorded by the<br \/>\nTribunal that the workmen definitely did not have an intention<br \/>\nto kill Shri Tripathi is a frivolous excuse for reducing the<br \/>\nsentence. He further submitted that the nature and manner of<br \/>\nattack in the presence of the security forces itself showed that<br \/>\nthe attack on the managerial staff of the appellant was<br \/>\npremeditated  and deliberate attack to undermine the discipline<br \/>\nin the organization.  Such indiscipline could not be exonerated<br \/>\non the excuse of emotions and feelings of workmen.  The<br \/>\nlearned Addl. Solicitor General also pointed out from the order<br \/>\nof the learned Single Judge that  he had recorded a finding that<br \/>\nthe conduct of the workmen was &#8216;a gross misconduct&#8217; and  had<br \/>\neven recorded a finding that because of the attack, the officials<br \/>\nhave been demoralised.  In such a fact situation  it is contended<br \/>\nthat the reduction of  punishment of dismissal into stoppage of<br \/>\none increment is perverse.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tUnfortunately, none appeared for the workmen in this<br \/>\ncase.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt is well established principle in law that in a given<br \/>\ncircumstance it is open to the Industrial Tribunal acting under<br \/>\nSection 11 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has the<br \/>\njurisdiction to interfere with the punishment awarded in the<br \/>\ndomestic inquiry for good and valid reasons. If the Tribunal<br \/>\ndecides to interfere with such punishment it should bear in<br \/>\nmind the principle of proportionality between the gravity of the<br \/>\noffence and the stringency of the punishment.  In the instant<br \/>\ncase it is the finding of the Tribunal  which is not disturbed by<br \/>\nthe writ courts that the two workmen involved in this appeal<br \/>\nalong with the others formed themselves into an unlawful<br \/>\nassembly, armed with deadly weapons, went to the office of<br \/>\nGeneral Manager and assaulted him and his colleagues causing<br \/>\nthem injuries. The injuries suffered by the General Manager<br \/>\nwere caused by lathi on the head.  The fact that the victim did<br \/>\nnot die is not a mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence<br \/>\nof dismissal.\n<\/p>\n<p>Considering the question of proportionality of<br \/>\npunishment this Court in the case  of Management of<br \/>\nKrishnakali Tea Estate Vs.  Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor<br \/>\nSangh &amp; Anr. [2004 (7) SCALE 608], a case involving<br \/>\nmisconduct of lesser liability held:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;This leaves us to consider whether the<br \/>\npunishment of dismissal awarded to the concerned<br \/>\nworkmen de hors the allegation of extortion is<br \/>\ndisproportionate to the misconduct  proved against<br \/>\nthem.  From the evidence proved, we find the<br \/>\nconcerned workmen entered the estate armed with<br \/>\ndeadly weapons with a view to gherao the<br \/>\nManager and others in that process they caused<br \/>\ndamage  to the property of the estate and<br \/>\nwrongfully confined the Manager and others from<br \/>\n8.30 p.m. on 12th of October to 3 a.m. on the next<br \/>\nday.  These charges, in our opinion, are grave<br \/>\nenough to attract the punishment of dismissal even<br \/>\nwithout the aid of the allegation of extortion.  The<br \/>\nfact that the Management entered into settlement<br \/>\nwith some of the workmen who were also found<br \/>\nguilty of the charge would not, in any manner,<br \/>\nreduce the gravity of the misconduct in regard to<br \/>\nthe workmen concerned in this appeal because<br \/>\nthese workmen did not agree with the settlement<br \/>\nwhich others are agreed instead chose to question<br \/>\nthe punishment.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Similarly in the case of  The Management of<br \/>\nTournamulla Estate Vs. Workmen [(1973) 2 SCC 502], this<br \/>\nCourt  while considering the denial of gratuity to a dismissed<br \/>\nworkmen held:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;If a workman is guilty of a serious misconduct<br \/>\nsuch as acts of violence against the management or<br \/>\ndisorderly behaviour in or near the place of<br \/>\nemployment, which though not directly causing<br \/>\ndamage, is conducive  to grave indiscipline, then<br \/>\nhis gratuity can be forfeited in its entirety. &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFrom the above it is clear that this Court has considered<br \/>\nan act of violence as an act of grave misconduct calling for<br \/>\nstringent punishment.\n<\/p>\n<p>From the facts narrated herein above, the ratio laid down<br \/>\nin two cases referred to herein above amply applies to the<br \/>\nappeal in hand. The courts below by condoning an act of<br \/>\nphysical violence have undermined the discipline in the<br \/>\norganisation, hence, in the above factual backdrop, it can never<br \/>\nbe said that the Industrial Tribunal could have exercised its<br \/>\nauthority under Section 11 (A) of the Act to interfere with the<br \/>\npunishment of dismissal. Substituting the order of dismissal in<br \/>\nsuch a case withholding of one increment in our opinion is<br \/>\nwholly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct and is<br \/>\nunsupportable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHerein it is worthwhile to recall the finding of the learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge who has rightly held that the assault on the senior<br \/>\nofficials by the workmen in discharging of their duties is a<br \/>\nmisconduct and in such a situation officials who are managing<br \/>\nthe affairs will be demoralised.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis being the factual situation we are of the opinion that<br \/>\nthe orders of the courts below modifying the punishment of<br \/>\ndismissal is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor the reasons stated above, the impugned orders of the<br \/>\nTribunal, Single Judge of the High Court and the Division<br \/>\nBench of the High Court are set aside and the order of dismissal<br \/>\nof the appellant-Management in regard to the respondent &#8211;<br \/>\nworkmen concerned is upheld.  The appeal is allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>C.A. NO. 1347 OF 2005<br \/>\n\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn view of the order made by us in Civil Appeal No. 3439<br \/>\nof 2003  this appeal is also  allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Employers,Mgmt., M. Colliery M\/S &#8230; vs Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union &#8230; on 22 February, 2005 Author: S Hegde Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.B. Sinha CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3439 of 2003 PETITIONER: Employers,Mgmt., M. Colliery M\/s BCCL Ltd. RESPONDENT: Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union Through: Workmen DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/02\/2005 BENCH: N. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-127589","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Employers,Mgmt., M. Colliery M\/S ... vs Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union ... on 22 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Employers,Mgmt., M. Colliery M\/S ... vs Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union ... on 22 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-05T22:44:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Employers,Mgmt., M. Colliery M\\\/S &#8230; vs Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union &#8230; on 22 February, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-05T22:44:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2135,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005\",\"name\":\"Employers,Mgmt., M. Colliery M\\\/S ... vs Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union ... on 22 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-05T22:44:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Employers,Mgmt., M. Colliery M\\\/S &#8230; vs Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union &#8230; on 22 February, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Employers,Mgmt., M. Colliery M\/S ... vs Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union ... on 22 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Employers,Mgmt., M. Colliery M\/S ... vs Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union ... on 22 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-05T22:44:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Employers,Mgmt., M. Colliery M\/S &#8230; vs Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union &#8230; on 22 February, 2005","datePublished":"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-05T22:44:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005"},"wordCount":2135,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005","name":"Employers,Mgmt., M. Colliery M\/S ... vs Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union ... on 22 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-05T22:44:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employersmgmt-m-colliery-ms-vs-bihar-colliery-kamgar-union-on-22-february-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Employers,Mgmt., M. Colliery M\/S &#8230; vs Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union &#8230; on 22 February, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127589","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=127589"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127589\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=127589"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=127589"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=127589"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}