- (1.) This appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution is from an Award dated June 29, 1968 made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bombay in Reference No. CGIT-73 of 1965. The reference of the Industrial dispute was as follows : "Whether the management of M/s. Krishna Commercial Co., Bombay and M/s. Mahesh Transport Co., Bombay are justified in not implementing the interim recommendations of the Wage Board for Port and Dock Workers as published with the Government of India, in the Ministry of Labour and Employment Resolution No. W. B. 21 (13) 65 dated April 27, 1965 in respect of their Cement/ Clinker handling workers at Bombay Port If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled to and from what date - The Tribunal, after taking evidence, came to the conclusion that the two Employers referred to in the reference were not justified in not implementing the interim recommendations of the Wage Board and, accordingly, passed an award in favour of the workers giving interim relief in accordance with the recommendations of the Wage Board. Out of the two employers mentioned in the reference, only M/s. Mahesh Transport Co. has come in appeal. The other employer namely M/s. Krishna Commercial Co. has not. The respondent in the present appeal is the Transport and Dock Workers Union representing about 29 Dock workers who were alleged to be the employees of the two firms referred to above.
(2.) The Government of India had constituted a Wage Board for the Port and Dock workers of major Ports and this Wage board, by its report, dated April 9, 1965, recommended interim relief. The Government accepted these recommendations and directed that the Port and Dock workers should be paid additional interim relief as recommended by the Board. The respondent workers were not paid the additional relief and hence a dispute was raised on their behalf with their employers. The employers did not co-operate in the Conciliation proceedings with the Labour Commissioner, whereafter, the Government of India referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal.
(3.) A number of questions were raised before the Tribunal. But we are not concerned with all of them. Mr. Hardy, who appeared on behalf of the appellants, contested the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain and determine the dispute and argued that the concept of common employment was foreign to Industrial Law and, in particular, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, the very reference was incompetent u/S. 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act.;