P. B. Gajendragadkar, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave raises the same points which we had to consider in the case of the Patna Electric Supply Co., Ltd. vs. Patna Electric Supply Workers' Union, Civil Appeal No. 227 of 1958, Decided on : 23-4-1959. In that case we have held that the tribunals were not justified in imposing on the employer company the obligation of constructing quarters for its employees and we have dealt at length with the effect of the scheme sanctioned by the Bihar Government and other points raised by the parties before us. The same points fall to be considered in the present appeal, and for the reasons which we have indicated in the case of the Patna Electric Supply Co., Ltd., (supra), the same result must follow in the present appeal.
(2.) The appellant in the present case is the Muzaffarpur Electric Supply Co., Ltd. The demand made by its employees for housing accommodation gave rise to the present industrial dispute. The tribunal directed the appellant to construct at least 12 quarters according to the specifications laid down in the scheme within one year from the date of the publication of the award. This part of the award was challenged by the appellant before the Labour Appellate Tribunal; but the appellate tribunal agreed with the view taken by the tribunal and rejected the appellant's contention. It is against the award thus confirmed by the appellate tribunal that the present appeal by special leave has been preferred.
(3.) At the hearing of this appeal Mr. Jai Krishan, for the respondent, raised a preliminary objection. He contended that the appeal as filed is incompetent inasmuch as the respondent is not properly described. Instead of describing the respondent as the workmen of the appellant represented by the Muzaffarpur Electric Supply Workers' Union, the appellant has impleaded the Union itself as the respondent. In our opinion this objection is purely technical and must be rejected. It would no doubt have been more accurate to describe the respondent as the appellant's workmen represented by the Union but we do not think that in the circumstances of this case such a misdescription of the respondent can make the appeal incompetent. Therefore the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Jai Krishan cannot be accepted.;