EMPLOYER IN RELATION TO MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN INSTITUTE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave is granted.

(2.) This appeal is from the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, Ranchi Bench, in L.P.A. No. 177 of 1999 (R) dated August 9, 1999. The appellant is the employer and 28 of its workmen are represented by respondent No. 2. The parties are, hereafter, referred to as "the employer" and "the workmen" respectively.

(3.) The facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a short compass. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, referred the following question under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the I.D. Act') to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 2) at Dhanbad (for short, 'the Tribunal') : "Whether the action of the management of Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd., Ranchi in terminating the services of Shri Naresh Jha and 27 others (as per Annexure) w.e.f. 1-7-1992 is justified If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled - On May 1, 1997 the Tribunal passed the award holding that the termination of 28 workmen was not justified and that they were entitled to reinstatement and regularisation with 40% backwages and other benefits. The validity of that award was assailed by the appellant before the High Court at Patna (Ranchi Bench) in CWJC No. 2406 of 1979(R). The workmen claimed relief under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act in that CWJC. On April 26, 1999, a learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the application and directed the appellant to pay the workmen full wages last drawn by them on the date of the termination of their services. The appellant challenged the correctness of that order in L.P.A. No. 177 of 1999(R) before the Division Bench of the High Court which held that against the order passed by the learned single Judge in terms of Section 17-B of the I.D. Act, the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable because that order was not 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. It is that judgment and order of the Division Bench, which is under challenge in this appeal.