TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. G.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Baban Lal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
(2.) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the Award dated 16.03.2001 passed in Reference Case No. 83 of 1997 whereby and whereunder he held that the action of the Management in not providing employment to Manoj Kumar (respondent No. 4) was not justified and accordingly directed the Management to provide employment to him within thirty days from the date of publication of the Award. Mr. G.M. Mishra, with reference to the order dated 13.07.2001 argued that the only question which arises for determination by this Court is as to whether the order of the Tribunal in directing the employment of the respondent No. 4 out of turn without taking into consideration the fact that persons similarly situated and empanelled prior to the respondent No. 4 (as evident from Annexure - 1), was correct or not. He further submits that the Management keeps a separate record of those employees who have been discharged on the basis of periodical medical examination and other employees who are discharged otherwise than on medical grounds.
(3.) THE facts of this case are not much in dispute because the father of respondent No. 4 namely Ganesh Singh was appointed on 04.07.1977 and thereafter he was discharged from service on account of having been found medically unfit with effect from 25.07.1994 after he had completed seventeen years of service. Mr. G.M. Mishra learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that under the old National Coal Wage Agreement IV (N.C.W.A. -IV in short), a dependent of a medically discharged employee would have been provided employment but so far as TISCO is concerned, there was a fool note appended thereto suggesting and giving liberty to the Management to deal with the issue in accordance with their own rules and regulations. Subsequently, the N.C.W.A. - IV was substituted by N.C.W.A. -V and by reason of the new Coal Wage Agreement, there was also a foot -note which said that in the case of TISCO, the matter would be settled at the bipartite level. However, it is relevant to state that in the N.C.W.A. -V, it has specifically been mentioned that this would supersede all past agreements. Upon perusal of the Award, it is evident that the Management did not file any bipartite agreement after coming into force of said N.C.W.A. -V.;