IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 682/2023

ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. …PETITIONER(S)

Nirmala Negi Date: 2025.04.16 17:05:09 IST Reason:

Versus

BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. The petitioners before this Court were working as casual workers between 1973 and 1975 on daily wages in the respondent-corporation, i.e. Bharat Coking Coal Limited. According to petitioners, in the year 1976, they were removed from the job, and consequently, the labour union i.e. Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh (hereinafter 'Union') took up the matter and raised an industrial dispute with the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad. Subsequently, before the Labour Commissioner, a settlement was arrived at between the employer (i.e. the respondents) and the Union on 06.02.1984, where it was agreed that as and when Digitally signed by Signature Not Verified

the requirement arises, petitioners will be enlisted as 'Badli workers' in the respondent-corporation after following the formalities of verification.

2. Thereafter, in the year 1991, the Union approached this court by filing a Writ Petition and alleged inaction on the part of the respondents, in not honouring the settlement fully. That Writ Petition was disposed of on 06.11.1992 with the following order:

"It has been averred in the petitions that out of 310 workers, 113 have been identified by the respondents. The averment has not been denied in the counter filed by the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, states that after identification certain formalities have to be completed. The petitioners shall satisfy all the conditions which are necessary to complete the process of identification if they have not already satisfied. The names of 113 identified workers shall be placed on the panel of candidates who are to be absorbed as Badli workers as and when the vacancies arise according to the seniority and settlement dated February 6, 1984. So far as the remaining 197 workmen are concerned, they are yet to be identified. We direct the Regional Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad to conduct the process of identification in accordance with the settlement dated February 6, 1984. This should be done expeditiously and

preferably within three months. As and when the process of identification is completed, the identified workmen will be placed on the panel and absorbed in the manner indicated above. The Union-Respondent No. 11 and the petitioner's Union shall assist the Labour Commissioner in the process of identification. The writ petitions and special leave petition are disposed of in the above terms."

• 3. Now, after a gap of almost thirty years, petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition seeking the implementation of this Court's order dated 06.11.1992. Through the present petition, petitioners mainly seek reinstatement in service as 'Badli workers' w.e.f. 06.11.1992 with full back wages.
• 4. We have heard both sides and perused the material on record.
• 5. According to the petitioners, although many of their colleagues had been taken in as 'Badli workers' in terms of the settlement, no order has been passed in their case despite the representations made by them to the concerned authorities from time to time.
• 6. On the other side, in its counter-affidavit, the respondent has submitted that, as per the settlement dated 06.02.1984, workmen were required to take some steps to facilitate the

respondent in the process of verification of the identities of workers so that cases of impersonation could be avoided. However, as per the respondents, petitioners did not take timely steps as required by the settlement of the year 1984.

7. As far as this Court's order dated 06.11.1992 is concerned, this Court had directed for the process of identification to be conducted by Regional Labour Commissioner within three months from the date of the order and after the process of identification, names of the workers had to be put in the panel of candidates who were to be absorbed as 'Badli workers' in accordance to their seniority and requirement of respondent-corporation. The counsel for the respondent would argue that as per the order dated 06.11.1992, the Regional Labour Commissioner, in cooperation with the Union, had to complete the identification process and thereafter, the respondent had to take further steps. The respondent would argue that petitioners themselves had failed to comply with the conditions of the settlement dated 06.02.1984 and this Court's order dated 06.11.1992. Moreover, the order dated 06.11.1992 had directed for the absorption of workmen according to seniority only in case

vacancies arise in the respondent-corporation, and vacancies did not arise so as to accommodate all the workers.

• 8. We are not required to make any observations on these aspects because, in any case, it is too late in the day to look into the grievance of petitioners or to provide any kind of relief to them. The fact is that petitioners are alleged to have been removed from service in the year 1976, and the settlement, on which petitioners heavily rely, is of the year 1984, whereas the order of which non-compliance is alleged is of the year 1992. The petitioners have failed to explain why they have filed the present petition in the year 2023 seeking the implementation of the order, which was passed way back in the year 1992.
• 9. Further, petitioners have not even furnished the complete and proper details as to why they have not taken any steps since the year 1992. The petitioners' only excuse, that they have been continuously making representations before the respondents, is of no help to them, and they cannot be given any relief now.
• 10. Under these circumstances, we cannot pass any order in favour of petitioners. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
• 11. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

………………………………, J. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

………………………………, J. [K. VINOD CHANDRAN]

NEW DELHI, APRIL 9, 2025.