S.K.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THE writ petition has been preferred by M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (B.C.C.L. for short) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the order of the respondent -Union of India, as contained in Order No. L -20012/721/97 -IR (Coal -I) dated 30th June, 1998, whereby and whereunder, the appropriate Government, the Central Government referred the following dispute for adjudication to the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1. Dhanbad - "Whether the demand of the Union for the employment of land losers as per the enclosed annexure by the management of M/s. B.C.C.L. is justified? If so, to what relief are these persons entitled -
(2.) THE main question raised by the petitioner is whether the person concerned, can be termed as workman, as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (I.D. Act for short) : And Whether the dispute as referred can be termed as a dispute as contemplated under Section 2K of the I.D. Act or not. Apart from the aforesaid question raised, the petitioner has also raised the issue relating to stale reference. It appears that certain lands were acquired at the instance of M/s. B.C.C.L. in the year 1993 for construction of Koyla Bhawan and also for residential Quarters of Coal workers. The land loosers claimed compensation amount and employment to them/or their dependents. The matter was taken up by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad -4 for conciliation. The General Manager (P&IRW) of M/s. B.C.C.L., Dhanbad, vide its letter No. 272, dated 8th January. 1997 informed the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Centra)) Dhanbad that they do not find that the case of land loosers is covered as per Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act and requested not to proceed further. In the aforesaid circumstances, the reference, in question, was made by the appropriate Government vide order dated 30th June, 1998, registered as Reference No. 32/98 in the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad.
(3.) THE expression any person in Section 2(k) of I.D. Act whether includes a person who is not in employment or not, fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Workmen, DTE V. Management, D.T.E., reported in AIR 1958 SC 353. The Supreme Court summarised the expression, as quoted hereunder : "To summarise. Having regard to the scheme and object of the Act and its other provisions, the expression any person in Section 2(k) of the Act must be read subject to such limitations and qualifications as arise from the context; the two crucial limitations are (1) the dispute must be a real dispute between the parties to the dispute (as indicated in the first two parts of definition clause) so as to be capable of settlement or adjudication by one party to the dispute giving necessary relief to the other, and (2) the person regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one in whose employment, non -employment, terms of employment, or conditions of labour (as the case may be) the parties to the dispute have a direct or substantial interest. In the absence of such interest the dispute cannot be said to be a real dispute between the parties. Where the workmen raise a dispute as against their employer, the person regarding whose employment, non -employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour the dispute is raised need not be, strictly speaking, a workman within the meaning of the Act but must be one in whose employment, non -employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour the workmen is a class have a direct or substantial interest.";