(1.) The ten petitioners in these ten applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India carry on business as stevedores in the port of Calcutta and are members of the Master Stevedores' Association. They all have obtained rule from this Court against the respondents to show cause as to why an appropriate writ or direction be not issued against the 1st respondent restraining him from exercising any jurisdiction in regard to an alleged industrial dispute referred to him by the Central Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947). The 1st respondent was originally described by name as G. Palit Chairman, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad. At the commencement of the hearing, we were informed by the petitioners that Mr. G. Palit is dead and somebody else is the Chairman of the said Industrial Tribunal. We, therefore, by cur order dated 2-5-62 directed the deletion of the name of Mr. G. Palit as it was not necessary to describe the 1st respondent by name, as a result of which the 1st-respondent now is the Chairman of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad. Respondents 2 to 4 are the various registered Trade Unions of the dock workers of Calcutta Port.
(2.) Annexure 'C' to the petition in Miscellaneous Judicial Case 617 of 1960 is a copy of the notification dated the 10th of February, 1960, issued by the Government of India referring the alleged industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, for adjudication. It reads thus:
(3.) In order to appreciate and decide the point involved in these cases, it is necessary to understand the nature of the business of stevedore or stevedoring firms and the scheme under which dock workers are employed by them. 'Dock worker' is denned in Section 2 (b) of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (Act IX of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Act, as such:-