P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, C.J. - (1.) This appeal is by the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 2827 of 1995 on the file of this Court. By the judgment under appeal dated August 4, 1997, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge, The said dismissal is challenged. Events leading to this appeal: Cameen Mazdoor Sabha approached the Supreme Court with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 702 of 1986 seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Chairman cum Managing Director of the Metallurgical & Engineering Consultant (India) Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Mecon) and the Chairman of the Steel Authority of India Limited to treat the employees of the Canteen run by Mecon Welfare Committee at par with the employees working in the VIP Guest House and Tea Club of Mecon and to grant them every benefit given to those employees and to treat them as employees of Mecon. The writ petition was taken on file. It was observed in the order dated February 23, 1987 that there was a dispute on the question whether the nature of the services performed by the members of the Sabha correspond to those performed by the employees of the Mecon and there was a further dispute whether the members of the Sabha or the employees of the Canteen were employees of the registered society. The writ petition was directed to be listed after the judgment was pronounced in Writ Petition Nos. 12143-12214 of 1984. On October 19, 1992, the writ petition was finally disposed of. It was stated in the order that the parties agree that a joint Reference under Section 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 be made to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the disputes between the Sabha and Mecon. The disputes set out in the order are: "1. Whether the employees of Canteen engaged and employed by MECON Welfare Committee consisting of the representatives of MECON (Non-Executive) Employees Union, MECON Executive Association and nominees of MECON, are entitled to the same service conditions as are applicable to the employees of the VIP Guest House and of the Tea Club who are employed and engaged by MECON? 2. If so, from what date? 3. In view of the nature of work performed by Canteen employees engaged and employed by MECON Welfare Committee, are they justified in law in asking for parity with the employees of MECON working in the VIP Guest House and the Tea Club keeping in view that the total number of the Canteen employees are only 25 and the said Canteen run by MECON Welfare Committee is a non-statutory and non-recognised canteen?"
(2.) The order directed the State Government to refer the above disputes to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication. Pursuant to this order, the State Government referred the above questions to the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi for a decision. It was taken on file as Reference Case No. 1 of 1993 . The Industrial Tribunal raised the following points for consideration based on the pleadings of the parties. (i) Whether the present reference is bad in law and on facts? (ii) Whether the relationship of employer and employees exists in between time Management of Mecon or the management of Mecon (SAIL) Welfare Committee and the employees of Mecon Canteen, and (iii) Whether the employees of Mecon Canteen are entitled to get pay scale and other benefits which pay scale and other benefits are made available to the employees of VIP Guest House as well as the employees of Tea Club of Mecon? The Tribunal after noticing the facts that were not in dispute, proceeded to discuss some of the evidence and entered a finding that the Reference was not bad either in law or on facts; that the relationship of employer and employees existed between the management of Mecon and the workmen of Mecon Canteen and that the workmen of Mecon Canteen are entitled to get pay scales and other benefits which were/are available to the workmen of Mecon VIP Guest House and Mecon Tea Club from the respective dates of appointments of the concerned workmen. This award was challenged by Mecon in the writ petition before this Court. It was argued on behalf of Mecon that the Tribunal had misdirected itself in framing the question as to whether there existed a relationship of employer and employee between the Management of Mecon and the Workmen in the Canteen or the Management of Mecon SAIL Welfare Committee and the employees of Mecon canteen. It was contended that the question that was referred to, as directed by the Supreme Court was whether the employees of the Canteen engaged and employed by Mecon Welfare Committee consisting of the representatives of Mecon Employees Union, Mecon Executive Association and the nominees of Mecon, are entitled to the same service conditions as applicable to the employees of the VIP Guest House and of the Tea Club, who are employed and engaged by Mecon. The question referred as directed by the Supreme Court clearly implied that the workers of the Canteen were employed by the Mecon Welfare Committee, distinct from MECON, and the question was whether those persons employed by the Committee were liable to be treated at par with the employees of Mecon. Since the Tribunal had posed a wrong question for decision and had given a wrong answer to that question, the award was liable to be interfered with. On behalf of the Sabha, it was contended that the Tribunal considered the relevant aspects and, has entered a proper finding and that there was no reason to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A preliminary objection was raised to the effect that the writ petition was not maintainable, since the reference was made as directed by the Supreme Court and the reference having been answered by the Tribunal, the Mecon had to approach the Supreme Court for challenging the decision and could not approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge rejected the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Sabha, but upheld the plea that no ground was made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, except to the extent of modifying the relief by limiting the same to be given effect to from the date of the Award of the Tribunal dated April 26, 1995. The Preliminary Objection
(3.) Before us also, learned counsel for the Sabha the respondent reiterated his preliminary objection that the writ petition ought not to have been entertained by this Court and that Mecon should have been left to approach the Supreme Court with its challenge to the award passed by the Tribunal based on the reference made, as directed by the Supreme Court in the proceeding initiated under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. According to the counsel, the Supreme Court having directed that the reference be made and having formulated the questions to be referred, any objection to the findings of the Tribunal could be raised only before that Court and Mecon was not entitled to approach this Court with a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We find it difficult to uphold the objection. Of course, the learned single Judge has also overruled this objection. As we understand the order of the Supreme Court, all that the Supreme Court did, was to direct the invocation of the machinery set up by the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The Supreme Court, no doubt, formulated the issues that have arisen, based on the agreement between the parties and directed the State Government, i.e. the appropriate Government, to make a reference to the concerned Industrial Tribunal in terms of Section 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act leaving it to the Tribunal to answer the issues in terms of the Act. In other words, the Supreme Court did not decide the question raised before it, notwithstanding that in some of the other cases, it had granted relief then and there and took the view that the dispute in this case should be adjudicated by recourse to the Industrial Disputes Act. Once that position is reached, it is obvious that the party aggrieved could approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even though the party might also have attempted to appeal to the Supreme Court against the award of the Industrial Tribunal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. But the fact that the Supreme Court could have been approached under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is not a ground for holding that Mecon is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That an aggrieved party can approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with a challenge to the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal has been clarified by the Supreme Court earlier. In fact, that position was not disputed by the learned counsel for the Sabha also. His only argument was that the reference having been directed to be made by the Supreme Court and what is attempted to be argued, involves an interpretation of the order of the Supreme Court and, therefore, it would have been appropriate for this Court to decline jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. This contention was not accepted by the learned single Judge, and in our view, rightly, as he has considered the case of the parties in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Sitting in appeal, we cannot say that the learned single Judge was not justified in overruling the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent Sabha. According to us also, there is no merit in the contention on behalf of the respondent that the writ petition would not lie in this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case.;