JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J. :— The correct interpretation of Section 9 of the Coking Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1972, (for short, the Act), read along with Section 17 settles the fate of this appeal by special leave. We may start off by narrating a few admitted facts sufficient to bring out the legal controversy which demands resolution.

2. The subject-matter of the appeal is an industrial dispute. The management of the New Dharamaband Colliery dismissed 40 workmen in October, 1969, and an industrial dispute sprung up and reference followed in October, 1970. The Industrial Tribunal held an elaborate enquiry into the dispute and made an award on July 1, 1972.

3. In the meanwhile, the Colliery was nationalised with effect from May 1, 1972, as provided for in the Act. The New Dharmaband Colliery vested in the Central Government and thereafter in the Bharat Coking Coal Company Ltd. Apparently by order of the Tribunal dated 24th March, 1972, the successor Company namely, the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (the respondent) was impleaded as a party. Thus, with the previous owner of the colliery and the nationalised industry, namely, the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. on record, the Tribunal made the following award :

"The action of the management of New Dharmaband Colliery in dismissing the forty workmen mentioned in the Schedule with effect from the 18th October, 1969 is not justified. The said workmen are to be reinstated with continuity of service by the management for the time being, namely, the Bharat Coking Coal Co. Ltd., and the said company shall be liable to pay their wages and other emoluments with effect from the 1st of May, 1972. ......... the management of the New Dharmaband Colliery and Bharat Coking Coal Co. Ltd. are jointly and severally liable to pay the same to the workmen concerned."

The first respondent was made liable for back wages with effect from the date of nationalisation when the right, title and interest in the Colliery vested in it. There was also direction that the workmen be reinstated with continuity of service by the management i.e., the first respondent, for the time being. Aggrieved by both these directions, the Bharat Coking Coal Company successfully invoked the Writ jurisdiction of the High Court, which quashed the award. Thereupon the workmen came up to this Court challenging the soundness of the legal position which appealed to the High Court.

4. Section 9 of the Act deserves to be reproduced at this stage :

"9. Central Government not to be liable for prior liabilities :

9.(1) Every liability of the owner, agent, manager, or managing contractor of a coking coal mine or coke oven plant, in relation to any period prior to the appointed day, shall be the liability of such owner, agent, manager or managing contractor, as the case may be, and shall be enforceable against him and not against the Central Government or the Government company.

9.(2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that -

(a) save as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Act, no claim for wages, bonus, royalty, rate, rent, taxes, provident fund, pension, gratuity or any other dues in relation to a coking coal mine or coke oven plant in respect of any period prior to the appointed day, shall be enforceable against the Central or the Government Company.

(b) ...........

(c) ..........."

Side by side we may also read Section 17 (1) :

17. (1) Every person who is a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and has been, immediately before the appointed day, in the employment of a coking coal mine or coke oven plant, shall become on and from the appointed day, an employee of the Central Government, or, as the case may be, of the Government company in which the right, title and interest of such mine or plant have vested under this Act, and shall hold office or service in the coking coal mine or coke oven plant, as the case may be, on the same terms and conditions and with the same rights to pension, gratuity and other matters as