GANGANSINGH DUMARSHING Vs. S TAKI BILGRAMI INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 claim to be employees of the third respondent, and petitioner No. 3 is a registered trade union of the workmen of the third respondent. The petition is in respect of an award made by the second respondent, and a copy of this award is to be found as part of Ex. A (collectively) to the petition. The award is in fact a part of the award, and the second respondent came to make this part award under circumstances which will be clear in the latter part of this judgment.

(2.) The award Part-I, hereinafter referred to as the award, was made in respect of three different references, being References (IT) Nos. 14, 77 and 338 of 1963. Reference No. 14 of 1963 was made on 1-10-1963 to the Tribunal consisting of the 1st respondent. It related to the disputes arising out of demands made by the company in schedule A, as also demands made by the union in schedule B annexed to the order of reference. It may be mentioned that this reference was made under the provisions of S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and it was made by the consent of the parties. Reference No. 77 of 1963 was made on 25-2-1963, also to the Tribunal consisting of the 1st respondent; it related to the disputes arising out of the demands for reinstatement of one Shri A. M. Rane and for bonus for all the workmen for a period between September to December, 1961. Reference No. 338 of 1963 was made on 3-10-1963 to the Tribunal consisting of Shri Athlye; it related to disputes arising out of demands made by the union for (i) bonus for the year ending 31-12-1962, (ii) wage scale and permanency for one Shri Mali and (iii) reinstatement of one driver with continuity of service and wages till reinstatement.

(3.) Now, the impugned award is, inter alia, challenged on the ground that the relevant industrial disputes were never referred to the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent had accordingly exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by law. Without going into the other matters of controversy, this point may be first disposed of.