V.K.GUPTA, C.J. - (1.) By this common judgment we propose to dispose of both the L.P.As. together.
(2.) Vide judgment dated March 16, 2001, passed in Civil Appeal No. 2100 of 2001 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11892 of 2000, their Lordships of the Supreme Court by setting aside the Division Bench judgments of Patna High Court in two Writ Petitions being CWJC No, 3253 of 1999(R) and CWJC No. 3254 of 1999(R) remitted to the Division Bench of this Court the aforesaid two Appeals for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Both the Writ applications related to two References made by the State Government under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act' for short). The appellant-Management of BASF India Ltd. had challenged the legality, validity and correctness of these two references in the aforesaid two writ applications which came to be dismissed by a learned single Judge of Patna High Court. Appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent having been filed by the appellant also meeting the same fate, the appellant had moved the Supreme Court and as noticed above their Lordships of the Supreme Court while setting aide the impugned orders of the Division Bench remitted the appeals for fresh disposal. The two references made in the two writ applications may be reproduced verbatim. These read thus: "Reference No. 1: "Whether the closure of BASF India Limited, Bokaro Steel City, declared by the management is justified ? If not, what relief the workmen of the said factory are entitled to?" "Reference No. 2: "Whether not to introduce the reconstruction works of the plant under the defined purpose of Voluntary Retirement Service (VRS) Scheme and to enforce its closure by BASF India Ltd., Bokaro is justified? If not, what relief under this scheme the workmen are entitled to?"
(3.) The ground on which the High Court of Patna had dismissed the Writ Applications and L.P.As. was that the Industrial Tribunal itself was competent to decide the question of the legality or validity of the References. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment did not agree with the aforesaid view of the High Court. We quote hereinbelow the observations of their Lordships on this point. These read thus: "In our opinion, it is not open to the Industrial Tribunal to determine whether a Reference made to it is justified or otherwise legally valid. It is also not open to the Industrial Tribunal to decide the question whether closure of the establishment is justified, in a Reference made by the State Government under the Industrial Disputes Act. The issues involved in the References were required to be decided by the High Court after taking into consideration all relevant facts. The High Court could not relegate the parties to the Industrial Tribunal for determination of those questions. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders of the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be sustained. The appeals are, thus, allowed and the impugned orders of the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside. The matters are remitted to the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court for their fresh disposal in accordance with law.";