EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF SWANG WASHERY OF M/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED THROUGH SRI UDAI PRAKASH, GENERAL MANAGER, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT DARBHANGA HOUSE, RANCHI, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. KOTWALI, DIST. RANCHI Vs. THEIR WORKMEN SRI PANKAJ KUMAR, SON OF LATE SUNDAR LAL MALLAH REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL COAL ORGANIZATION EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION THROUGH SHRI P.K. BISWAS, ZONAL SECRETARY (EAST ZONE), RESIDING AT SWANG, P.O. & P.S. GOMIA, DISTRICT BOKARO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 29th Jan., 2014 in I.A. No. 33 of 2014 in W.P.(L) No. 7444 of 2011, whereby, the learned Single Judge has not granted stay upon the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 64 of 2006 dated 12th Aug., 2011. It appears that the workman, who was in the services of this appellant, expired on 15th March, 1999. The applicant-son of the deceased-employee whose birth date 15th Aug., 1987 could not be enlisted in the live roster because he was only 12 years of age as on date of death of his father and as per Clause 9.5.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement-VI, if the legal heir of the deceased employee is above 15 years of age, his name will be kept in the live roster. This aspect of the matter was not properly appreciated by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad while allowing the Reference No. 64 of 2006 and, therefore, such award was challenged by the appellant before this Court in W.P.(L) No. 7444 of 2011.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the writ petition was admitted, but, the I.A. No. 33 of 2014, preferred for getting stay against the award, was rejected and, therefore, present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that if the stay is not granted, it will cause irreparable loss to the appellant and there is no prima facie case in favour of the respondent nor balance of convenience is in favour of the respondent and, therefore, after staying the award, let the learned Single Judge decide the writ petition being W.P.(L) No. 7444 of 2011, at the earliest.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting I.A. No. 33 of 2014 and, therefore, the appellant should give appointment to the respondent and, thereafter, the matter may be heard by the learned Single Judge.