EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO JAMADOBA Vs. VICE-PRESIDENT KOYALA MAZDOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has applied under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that an award given by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. III at Dhanbad, dated the 4th July, 1969, be quashed. By this award, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has held that the action of the management in terminating the lien of Shri Babu Lal, miner and placing him in the "Badli" list with effect from 8th June, 1966, was not justified and, therefore, Shri Babu Lal shall be paid leave wages and allowances admissible to him between the period from 25th April, 1966 to 14th June, 1966, and he is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages from 15th June, 1966, up to the date of his reinstatement, along with continuity of service.

(2.) THE relevant facts are as follows : THE Central Government, being of the opinion that an industrial dispute had existed between the petitioner and their workmen referred the following dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad:

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has argued that, if Standing Order No. 9 applied in this case, the award must be quashed, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case mentioned above. LEARNED Counsel has also urged, that the principle laid down by This Court in the case of Pure Kustore Colliery v. Khan Mazdoor Congress reported in 1969-I L.L.J. 133, following the decision of the Supreme Court, also points to the same conclusion, making the award a wrong one. In the absence of any contest by any of the respondents, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has himself drawn our attention to another judgment of This Court, in the case of Employers in relation to the Malkera-Choitudih Colliery v. Their Workmen and Ors. Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 655 of 1969, decided on 5th August, 1971 : 1972-I L.L.J. 364. In this case, the applicability of a similar standing order, with respect to a miner, was considered by a Bench of This Court and it was held that, on the terms of the Standing Order No. 9, it did not apply to the case of a miner. With respect to the case of Pure Kustore Colliery v. Khan Mazdoor Congress (supra), it was stated that on the point decided in that case, Pure Kustore Colliery's case was not an authority which could govern the case under consideration. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has distinguished the decision in Employers in relation to the Malkera-Choitudih Colliery v. Their Workmen and Ors. (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 655 of 1969, decided on 5th August, 1971; 1972-I L.LJ. 364, on the terms of reference there and has stressed his point on the term of reference made in this case, quoted aboVe. Having considered the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd., Jaipur v. Hanuman reported in 1967-II L.L.J. 883, and the decision in the case of Pure Kustore Colliery v. Khan Mazdoor Congress (supra), we are of opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is not possible to hold, at this stage, that Standing Order No. 9 was not applicable to Shri Babu Lal miner. It may be mentioned that in Pure Kustore Colliery's case (supra), the reference was in the following terms: