SITAPORE SUGAR WORKS LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant, Sitalpore Sugar Works Ltd., Garaul, Muzaffarpur, moves for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award of respondent 2, Chairman, Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, dated the 29th November 1956, Annexure C to the applicant's affidavit, in respect of respondents 3 to 7.

(2.) The applicant is a public limited Company, and, it carries on the business of manufacture of sugar from sugarcane, and, it owns a vacuum pan sugar factory at Garaul. On the 21st January 1955, a notification, Annexure A to the petitioner's affidavit, was issued by respondent 1, the State of Bihar, referring an industrial dispute between the managements of seven different sugar factories in the State of Bihar and their workmen including the petitioner's factory, and, its workmen, including respondents 3 to 7 also, to the adjudication of respondent 2. This notification was, however, superseded by a second notification which was issued by the State of Bihar, respondent 1, on the 12th March 1955, which is Annexure B to the petitioner's application. By this notification, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7, read with Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the "Industrial-Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', the number of factories involved was reduced by two, and, the industrial dispute referred to the matters specified in Annexure A to the notification which was to the following effect:-- "Whether the workmen named in Annexure B are entitled to reinstatement with compensation or any other relief?" In this industrial dispute, the petitioner and its workmen, respondents 3 to 7, were also concerned, and, their dispute was referred to respondent 2, who was constituted one-member Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of this dispute.

(3.) The Industrial Tribunal, respondent 2, gave its award on the 29th November 1956, which is Annexure C to the petitioner's affidavit, with respect to respondents 3 to 7 also. It set aside the punishment of dismissal from service inflicted by the management, the petitioner, on each of these respondents and gave its directions which it thought fit and proper in respect of each of them.