KRISHNA MINES, RAMAIYANPATTI VILLAGE, AND OTHERS Vs. BOARD OF ARBITRATION FOR CEMENT INDUSTRIES, PRAGATI TOWER, AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of writ petitions filed by the appellants for issue of writ of declaration declaring that the award passed by the Board of Arbitration for Cement Industry, the first respondent in the appeals on 11 July 1983 is null and void in so far as it relates to the petitioners and not binding on them. Two of the petitions, viz., Krishna Mines, Ramaiyanpali Village Vs. Board of Arbitration for Cement Industry, New Delhi 2 and others [Writ Petitions Nos. 7937 and 7940 of 1983] ,against which Writ Appeals Nos. 27p and 278 of 1986 have been filed respectively by the owners of mines quarrying limestone in Tirunelveli District. The other two writ petitions, Writ Petitions Nos. 7938 and 7939 of 1983 giving rise to Writ Appeals Nos. 276 and 277 of 1986 respectively are at the instance of the transport contractors. As all the writ petitions were dismissed by Sathiadev, J., by a common order, these appeals have been filed by the aggrieved petitioners.

(2.) The relevant facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions are as follows : Pursuant to an agreement between the Indian National Cement and Allied Workers Federation, referred to as 1. N. C A. W. F. shortly, and the Cement Manufacturers' Association, referred to as C. M. A. to refer the disputes, viz., the demands raised by I. N. C. A. W. F., to a Board of Arbitrators consisting of two persons, Sri G. Sri R. P. Navatia, the Ramanujam Government of and India in the Ministry of Labour, published in the Gazette of India, dated I Jan. 1982, the said agreement under S. 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said Act will be referred to hereinafter as the Act. The list of demands made by the I. N. C. A W. F. was also published. The Government of India was persuaded to do so as the parties to the agreement requested them that in view of the fact that the I. N. C. A. W. F. represent majority of workmen and the C. M. A. represents all the employers in the cement industry, the arbitration should be on the national level covering all the cement units and all their workmen, said publication, a 7 Jan. 1982, was Government under Sub-sec. (3A) of S. 10A of the Act, for the information of the employers and workmen, who are not parties to the dispute, that they shall be given an opportunity of presenting their case before the arbitrators. Thereafter, the I. N. C. A. W. F. made an application on I March 1982 to the arbitrators for issue of summons to the persons listed therein on the ground that they were concerned in the dispute related to demands 1(6), 1(d) and 1 (f) The appellants were shown as Nos. 2 to 5 in the said list. There were five other names in the list and it is not necessary to refer to them. The Board of Arbitration sent a Following the afore-notification, dated made by the Central the provisions of communication, dated 12 March 1982, under Reference No. B. 10/82 to all the nine persons listed in the application filed by the I. N. C. A. W. F. The communication reads thus :

(3.) The appellants made their representations before the Board through their counsel, who made oral submissions questioning the jurisdiction of the Board of Arbitrators to arbitrate over disputes between them and their workers or to issue a notice to them to produce certain documents, the appellant's counsel sent a communication in writing on 7 Feb. 1983, to the Secretary, Board of Arbitration for Cement Industry, reiterating the objections made by him in the course of oral arguments advanced before the Board. The substance of the objections raised by the appellants was that they were not parties to the arbitration agreement, there was no dispute between them and their workers, there was a subsisting agreement under S. 12(3) of the Act between them and their workers and that they were supplying limestone to other industries also such as calcium carbide, glass, paper and fertilizer. It was also contended that the scope of the reference could not be enlarged by the Board by bringing in industries other than cement manufacturing units. With reference to the carriers, it was contended that the Central Government had no power to make a notification under the Act and the appropriate Government was the State Government. A reference was also made in their communication to the rejection of a request made by All India Workers Federation, Ammasandra, in identical circumstances by the Board of Arbitration. The last paragraph of the said communication is in the following terms :