R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties. Both the connected matters are taken up together and decided by this common judgment. The management has challenged the, award whereby and whereunder the management has been directed to give employment to the two workmen (respondent Nos. 3 and 4), in such post as they were previously employed, whereas CWJC No. 1484 of 1994 (R) the two workmen have challenged the award on the ground that back wages from 18.11.1986 has not been provided in the award. CWJC No. 754 of 1994 (R) Learned counsel for the petitioner sub - mitted that the following facts are uncon - troverted. (I) M/s. Oriental Coal Company Limited (Company for short) was the owner of the coal mine, namely Badjna Colliery, which was nationalised under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. At the time of taking over of the mine, the said company refused to handover the Barakar Engineer - ing and Foundry Works Limited (BEFW) to the custodian/Central Government, on the ground that the same was a separate estab - lishment and the same has not vested under the Nationalisation Act. The said company, therefore, filed a writ petition before the Hon 'ble Calcutta High Court. The company was allowed to function as receiver of BEFW during the pendency of the writ petition. During the period of receivership, thirty eight workmen including the two workmen who were on casual rolls were retrenched on 29.5.1975 under a settlement and they received retrenchment compensation. The settlement, inter alia, provided that the management would offer the chance of "first refusal" to all the casual workmen whose services are terminated under the settle - ment, as and when recruitment of additional hands is under consideration in future. (II) The said dispute regarding vesting of BEFW was taken to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court while holding that the Nationalisation Act was constitutionally valid, did not specifically held that BEFW should be handed over to the said company and left the question open for determination as to whether the said workshop was ex - clusively catering the needs of the said com - pany or others. The said company, however, ultimately on its own handed over the said workshop BEFW to the petitioner on 14th November, 1986, presumably for the reason that the said workshop became junk and it was liability on the said company. There was a lock -out from 28.6.1980 continuing for more than six years. The petitioner did not take over any of the liabilities of the erstwhile owners, prior to the date of the take over. (III) On 25.6.1987, i.e. after about twelve years, the two workmen applied to the petitioner company for their re -employment on the ground that they were facing trouble due to un -employment. By an agreement made on 14.5.1999 between the petitioner and the union representing the two workmen, it was agreed that the following dispute shall be referred under section 10(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the arbitration of Shri S.K. Mukhopadhyaya, the then Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bombay. "Whether the demand of the Dhanbad Colliery Karamchari Sangh for employ - ment of Shri Bishram Yadav and Rameshwar Yadav in Barakar Karam - chari Engineering and Foundry Works of M/s. Oriental Coal Fields Limited is justified ? if so to what relief they are entitled?" (IV) The arbitrator by an award dated 24.11.1993 held that the demand of employ - ment of the two workmen was justified and the management was directed to give them employment within one month from the date of publication of the award.
(2.) AGAINST the said award, the present writ petition has been filed by the manage - ment. By order dated 12.5.1994, the order of reinstatement was stayed by this Court sub - ject to the petitioner paying Rs. 1500/ - per month to the two workmen with effect from the date of the award which shall be subject to adjustment, dependent upon the result of this writ application. Learned counsel appearing for the workmen raised a preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of this writ peti - tion, on the ground that an award passed under section 10(A) of the Industrial Dis - putes Act is an arbitration award and the same cannot be challenged by the manage - ment in this writ petition.
(3.) AFTER hearing the parties at length, and going by the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court, reported in Rohtas Industries Limited v. Rohtas Industries Staff Union, 1976 (32) FLR 50 (SC) and in view of that fact situation emerging in this case, we are of the view that the award deserves our inter - ference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.;