- (1.) In this case the petitioner Ram Khelawan Prasad has moved the High Court for grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution for calling up and quashing the award of the Central Government industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, dated the 25th May, 1960, in Reference No. 6 of 1960. Cause has been shown on behalf of respondent No. 3, Messrs Dhemo Main Colliery, but there is no appearance on behalf of the other respondents to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given.
(2.) It appears that there was an agreement between the petitioner and Dhemo Main Colliery, respondent No. 3, under which the petitioner agreed to be paid 30 np per tub of coal trammed at the surface of the colliery and a commission of 3 nP per tub. It is alleged by the petitioner that he procures the employment of labourers for raising coal at the colliery and supervises their work. It is said that respondent No. 2, Arjun Nunia was employed as a surface trammer in the colliery, but on the 1st of July, 1959, he was dismissed by the petitioner on certain charges. There was a conciliation proceeding in the matter and on the 13th of January, 1960, the Government of India referred the dispute under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad. The order of the Central Government is Annexure B to the writ application and reads as follows : "Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that ar industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the Dhemo Main Colliery and their workmen in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule hereto annexed; And whereas the Central Government cons'ders it desirable to refer the said dispute for adjudication; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad constituted under Section 7A of the said Act. Schedule Whether the discharge of Shri Arjun Nunja, surface trammer, with effect from the 1st July, 1959, was justified and if not, to what relief is he entitled and from whom, i.e. whether from the management of Dhemo Main Colliery or the Contractor, Shri Ram Khelawan?"
(3.) After making enquiry into the matter, the central Government Industrial Tribunal held that the petitioner, Ram Khelawan Prasad, should take back Arjun Nunia in his employment and should also pay compensation to Arjun Nunia at the rate of half his average monthly earnings right from 1st July, 1959, up to the date of his reinstatement. On behalf of the petitioner, learned Counsel stressed the argument that the reference of the Central Government was ultra vires and without jurisdiction since the petitioner Ram Khelawan Prasad could not be treated as an "employer" within the meaning o'f the Industrial Disputes Act and there was no "industrial dispute" between the parties within the meaning of that Act. We do not think there is any substance in the argument. According to paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, there was a written contract between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 under which the petitioner was paid at the rate of 30 nP. per tub of coal trammed at the surface and also a commission of 3 nP. per tub. The contract is reproduced in Annexure X to the counter-affidavit and reads as follows : "Colliery -- Dhemo Main To. A. Lala, Cont. Ramkhelon Cont. Lala Cont. Arrange to start work at once en Tramming Coal tubs at surface, Dishergarh Seam, at the following rates : Description of work (Full descriptive detail must be given) Rates in works Remarks. For tramming of coal tubs on the surface D Seam by their own men. 0.30 nP. per tub Commission 0.03 per Tub. Sd. Illeg. Manager. Signed Illegible in Hindi. Sd. Illeg. 25.4.60 I agree to carry out the work on the rates and terms stated herein. Sd. Illeg. Contractor" It is also stated on behalf of respondent No. 3 that there was no relationship of employer and employee between Arjun Nunia and respondent No. 3. It is, however, conceded that respondent No. 3 was responsible for medical treatment and sick Khorakee, supervision of work, disciplinary action and payment of bonus, but ail these were statutory obligations. After examining the evidence on the point, the Tribunal has found that the petitioner was responsible for appointment and dismissal of Arjun Nunia and he was also responsible for granting him leave and payment of wages. The finding of the Tribunal is that there was relationship of employer and employee as between the petitioner and Arjun Nunia. in our opinion, this finding is not vitiated by any error of law. We accordingly reject the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was no "industrial dispute" between the parties in this case and the reference to tiie Cen. tral Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act is incompetent.;