- (1.) By Court Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The appellant is aggrieved against the judgement dated 20th December, 2006 by which the C.W.J.C. No. 856 of 1993(R) and 859 of 1993(R) were allowed and the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference Case No. 32 of 1989 and Reference Case No. 35 of 1989 had been set aside.
(3.) The award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference Case Nos. 32 and 35 of 1989 was under challenge by preferring writ petitions before this Court and those writ petitions being C.W.J.C. No. 856 of 1993(R) and 859 of 1993(R) were dismissed vide order dated 10th August, 1998 upholding both the awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal. The order dated 10 th August, 1998 was challenged by preferring two Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 424 and 425 of 1998 (R), which too were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 17th May, 1999. The employees preferred Civil Appeal No. 1902 and 1903 of 2000 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 16th January, 2006, remanded the matter to this Court. The operative part of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 16th January, 2006 is as under:- "It appears that the Tribunal and the High Court did not consider the factual position in the background of the legal position as noted above. Of court at the point of time when the matter was decided Air India's case (supra) held the field. But, in view of the pronouncement of the Constitution Bench in Steel Authority's case (supra) the matter needs to be re-examined by the High Court. Though it was submitted by Mr. Upadhyay that there is a finding about the appellant having adopted a camouflage, there is no definite finding by the Tribunal and/or the High Court in this regard. Mere reference to certain observations of this Court would not suffice without examination of the factual position. Additionally, the effect of omitting the names of the claimants whose cause was being espoused by the Union has not been considered by the High Court in the proper perspective. Similar is the position regarding purported settlement. In these peculiar circumstances, it would be appropriate for the learned Single Judge of the High Court to re-considerdf the matter. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the High Court so that learned Single Judge can consider the matter afresh taking to account the principles set out above and consider their applicability to the background facts on the issues raised by the appellant. As the matter is pending since long, learned Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to allot the matter to a learned Single Judge who shall make and effort to dispose of the matter afresh within a period of six months from the date the matter is allotted by the learned Chief Justice".;