Judgement

DUA, J. :- Facts giving rise to this appeal by special leave may briefly be stated:

On May 18, 1956 an award was made by Shri Majumdar, which is popularly known as the Majumdar Award. On May 23, 1960 the Central Government, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 36-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 14 of 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) referred to Shri G. Palit, Chairman, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad the question

"Whether traffic is to be placed in Grade II of the clerical service in terms of the said Award" the award being the award of the All India Industrial Tribunal (Colliery Disputes) published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3 dated the 26th May, 1956. (S. R. O. No. 1224 dated 18-5-56).

"Traffics are a category of clerical staff covered by the award of the All India Industrial Tribunal (Colliery Disputes), popularly known as the Majumdar Award , and it appears that in the opinion of the Government a difficulty or doubt had arisen with regard to the interpretation of the provisions of the said award in so far as it related to the scale of pay etc. for "Traffics and accordingly, the question had been referred for interpretation to the Dhanbad Central Government Industrial Tribunal, then presided over by Shri G. Palit. This order of the Central Government gave rise to Reference No. 27 of 1960".

During the course of the hearing of this reference some colliery owners, including the appellant Ballarpur Collieries Co., which is a private partnership, in whose collieries there were, no workmen with the designation of "Traffic" wanted to be excluded from the reference altogether on the ground that they were not interested in the dispute pending before the Tribunal presided over by Shri Palit. The appellant presented an application in August, 1960 stating:

"So far as the petitioner is concerned this dispute does not concern these collieries because they have not got any traffic in employees coming under this category. As such the presence of the petitioner before this Tribunal is not necessary."

It appears that the Tribunal did not record any express order either permitting the appellant to withdraw from the dispute or declining such permission. The appellant, however, did not take part in the proceedings thereafter and the workers of the appellant s colliery also did not take any steps to participate therein. In the Award given by Shri Palit known as Palit s Award which was published in the Gazette of India on November 22 1960, it is not disputed that the case of those collieries as well, including the appellant s colliery at Ballarpur where the workmen described as "Traffic" did not exist for the time being was dealt with. Reference to the application presented by the appellant and other colliery owners was made in the Award in the following terms:

"Then with reference to the contention of some of the collieries that where the workmen designated as traffic do not occur, their names should be omitted from the present reference under Section 18 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But this section has been wrongly invoked here. In the present case I have not summoned them in pursuance of the said section. So the question does not arise whether they were so summoned without proper cause. They have been summoned in the present case because they were parties to the original award. I have to summon all the parties who were impleaded in the original coal Award. So this contention is overruled. In an omnibus or industrywise reference it is not necessary that the dispute must relate to each one of them or the cause of action must exist in all cases. Even if the dispute is not there but they are made parties in the reference, all that may be said is that they are under no obligation to implement the Award. But the award will be binding on all of them all the same. So I am unable to exclude them."

During the pendency of the proceedings before Shri Palit the workers of the app