BENGAL COAL CO LTD Vs. CHAIRMAN CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner, namely, the Bengal Coal Company Limited, has obtained a rule from the High Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, in Reference Case No. 19 of 1960, dated the 25th July, 1950, should not be quashed by grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 1, but cause has been shown on behalf of Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given.

(3.) During the hearing of this case two applications were made on behalf of (1) the National Coal Development Corporation Limited, and (2) Messrs. Lcdna Colliery Company Limited, for being added as additional respondents in this case. By our order dated the 3rd May, 1952, we directed that these two intervenor parties should be made additional respondents to the writ application. On the 25th February, 1954, the Central Government constituted an Industrial Tribunal called the All India Industrial Tribunal (Colliery Disputes) Calcutta, for adjudication of industrial disputes concerning about 1000 coal mines in the country and referred for its adjudication various issues, including the issue of fixing piece-rates for different types of piece-rate workers employed in coal mines. It appears that all employers of coal mines, including the petitioner and the intervenor respondents 5 and 6 and the workmen employed by such employers, in various states, were parties to the reference before the said Tribunal, and all such employers and workmen appeared and adduced oral and documentary evidence before the said Tribunal. On the 26th May, 1956, the said Tribunal made its award (hereinafter referred to as the Coal Award). Against this award the workmen preferred an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal. In appeal the Coal Award was modified by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in certain respects. Paragraph 141 of the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal reads as follows: