RAM KHELAWAN PRASAD Vs. G PALIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner Ram Khelawan Prasad has moved the High Court for grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution for calling up and quashing the award of the Central Government industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, dated the 25th May, 1960, in Reference No. 6 of 1960. Cause has been shown on behalf of respondent No. 3, Messrs Dhemo Main Colliery, but there is no appearance on behalf of the other respondents to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given.

(2.) It appears that there was an agreement between the petitioner and Dhemo Main Colliery, respondent No. 3, under which the petitioner agreed to be paid 30 np per tub of coal trammed at the surface of the colliery and a commission of 3 nP per tub. It is alleged by the petitioner that he procures the employment of labourers for raising coal at the colliery and supervises their work. It is said that respondent No. 2, Arjun Nunia was employed as a surface trammer in the colliery, but on the 1st of July, 1959, he was dismissed by the petitioner on certain charges. There was a conciliation proceeding in the matter and on the 13th of January, 1960, the Government of India referred the dispute under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad. The order of the Central Government is Annexure B to the writ application and reads as follows :

(3.) After making enquiry into the matter, the central Government Industrial Tribunal held that the petitioner, Ram Khelawan Prasad, should take back Arjun Nunia in his employment and should also pay compensation to Arjun Nunia at the rate of half his average monthly earnings right from 1st July, 1959, up to the date of his reinstatement. On behalf of the petitioner, learned Counsel stressed the argument that the reference of the Central Government was ultra vires and without jurisdiction since the petitioner Ram Khelawan Prasad could not be treated as an "employer" within the meaning o'f the Industrial Disputes Act and there was no "industrial dispute" between the parties within the meaning of that Act. We do not think there is any substance in the argument. According to paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, there was a written contract between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 under which the petitioner was paid at the rate of 30 nP. per tub of coal trammed at the surface and also a commission of 3 nP. per tub. The contract is reproduced in Annexure X to the counter-affidavit and reads as follows :