D.G.R. Patnaik, J. - (1.) HEARD .
(2.) THE petitioner, being the management of Sumadih area of M/s BCCL in Eastern Jharia Area, has in this writ application challenged award dated 20.05.2003 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad, in reference case No. 23/1996 whereby, while answering the reference in favour of the workman, the Tribunal had directed the management to allow the concerned workman to resume his duty and to pay him 50% back wages with effect from 1978. The terms of reference of the dispute as made by the Central Government to the Tribunal for adjudication is as follows: Whether the Union is justified in demanding from the management of Pathardih Colliery of BCCL resumption of his services retrospectively with effect from 1978 of Sri Umapada Thakur, Explosives Carrier? If so, to what benefit the concerned workman is entitled and from which date?
(3.) THE case of the workman is pleaded by him before the Tribunal was that being employed as an Explosive Carrier at the Pathardih colliery of the Respondent -BCCL and ever since the date of his appointment, he had rendered his continuous service by putting in 240 days attendance continuously in each calender year. However, with effect from 1978, he was stopped from working without assigning any reason and without complying the mandatory provisions of notice as per Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act. He submitted his representation before the management praying for allowing him to resume his duty and the filial decision on his prayer continued to be postponed on one pretext or tine other. Ultimately, by letter dated 26/27.03.1993, he was asked to report for his duty at Pathardih Washery, on the ground that his services was already transferred from the Colliery to the Washery. When as per the direction, he reported for his duty at the Pathardih Coal Washery, he was informed that his name was struck of from the rolls. Being aggrieved, he raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad, for conciliation. The conciliation having failed, the matter was referred to the Appropriate Government for referring the industrial dispute for adjudication, but only on the ground of delay, the Appropriate Government had refused to refer the dispute for adjudication. The workman thereafter, filed a writ application before this Court, vide C.W.J.C. No. 3677/1995. By order dated 15.12.1995, the writ application was disposed of with a direction to the Appropriate Government to refer the dispute for adjudication. It was in pursuance to the directions of the Court that the Appropriate Government had referred the dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal.;