CHAIRMAN COAL INDIA LIMITED Vs. MADAN PRASAD SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by special leave are against the judgments dated 1-10-1985 and 30-5-1990 of the Single Bench and the Division Bench respectively of the Calcutta High Court whereby the Single Bench allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondent and the Division Bench, on appeal, merely modified the relief granted by the Single Bench.

(2.) The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the very foundation of the respondents' claim is disputed and so also their identity inasmuch as it was the appellants' case throughout that none of the respondents was a workman who could claim to continue as a workman of the appellant on nationalisation of the coal mines. It was also contended that several disputed questions of fact arose for adjudication and, therefore, the writ petitions under Article 226 of the constitution were not maintainable and the remedy, if any, available to the respondents was under the industrial law relating to the adjudication of an industrial dispute. Learned Additional Solicitor General reiterated that the identity and status of the respondents as workmen being seriously disputed, this alone was sufficient to dismiss the writ petitions filed by the respondents in the High Court. We find that these submissions have weight in the facts of the present case.

(3.) Even during the pendency of these appeals, ample opportunity was given to the respondents to furnish the material documents to the appellants together with the necessary particulars to enable their identification and scrutiny of their claim as workmen to determine the genuineness of their claim. Even after the lapse of more than five years during the pendency of these appeals, the respondents have not satisfied this requirement. This position continues even at the present hearing of the appeals. In such a situation, it is difficult to appreciate how the High Court could proceed to adjudicate the respondents' claim on merits even before their identity and status as workmen could be ascertained. This alone is sufficient to indicate that entertaining the writ petitions and grant of any relief therein to the respondents on this material was wholly unjustified. The appropriate course for the High Court to adopt was to decline exercise of any power under article 226 of the Constitution and to require the respondents to resort to the remedy of adjudication of the alleged industrial dispute in the manner provided therefor under the industrial laws.