The duty imposed upon the Industrial Tribunal under Section 36A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to give an opportunity of being heard to the parties to the original award is a condition of jurisdiction and not a mere matter of procedure.

1. In this case the petitioner, namely, the Bengal Coal Company Limited, has obtained a rule from the High Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, in Reference Case No. 19 of 1960, dated the 25th July, 1950, should not be quashed by grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 1, but cause has been shown on behalf of Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given.

3. During the hearing of this case two applications were made on behalf of (1) the National Coal Development Corporation Limited, and (2) Messrs. Lcdna Colliery Company Limited, for being added as additional respondents in this case. By our order dated the 3rd May, 1952, we directed that these two intervenor parties should be made additional respondents to the writ application. On the 25th February, 1954, the Central Government constituted an Industrial Tribunal called the All India Industrial Tribunal (Colliery Disputes) Calcutta, for adjudication of industrial disputes concerning about 1000 coal mines in the country and referred for its adjudication various issues, including the issue of fixing piece-rates for different types of piece-rate workers employed in coal mines. It appears that all employers of coal mines, including the petitioner and the intervenor respondents 5 and 6 and the workmen employed by such employers, in various states, were parties to the reference before the said Tribunal, and all such employers and workmen appeared and adduced oral and documentary evidence before the said Tribunal. On the 26th May, 1956, the said Tribunal made its award (hereinafter referred to as the Coal Award). Against this award the workmen preferred an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal. In appeal the Coal Award was modified by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in certain respects. Paragraph 141 of the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal reads as follows:

"in the result, for the loader in Bengal and Bihar, we fix the basic wage of Rs. 1/5/0 plus Rs. 1/11/8, as dearness allowance, making his total wage Rs. 3/0/8 for for loading 2 tubs of 36 cft. For one tub of 35 cft. the remuneration by way of basic and dsarness allowance would be Rs. 1/8/4 and the loader shall he paid at that rate for every tub or a part of a tub in excess of 2 tubs loaded by him in any shift, in other words, for output higher than 2 tubs his basic and clearness allowance per tub will not go down but remain constant at Rs. 1/8/4 per tub of 36 cft."

In the year 1958 the Colliery Mazdoor Congress, which is respondent No. 3 raised a dispute demanding that the conveyor-loaders should be paid the same piece-rates per tub as ordinary tub-loaders. But the petitioner objected that paragraph 141 of the award of the Labour Appellate Tribunal applied only to ordinary tub-loaders and not to conveyor-loaders. In its order No. 3/25/59-1R-11, dated the 31st March, 1960, the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, stated that whereas doubt has arisen as to the correct interpretation of paragraph 141 of the award of the Labour Appellate Tribunal as to whether the directions contained therein were applicable to conveyor-loaders, the Government of India referred the question for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, under Sec.36A of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the 25th July, 1960, the Central Government industrial Tribunal of Dhanbad gave its decision, upon the reference and the same was published in the Gazette of India risked the 27th August, 1960. By its decision the Central Government Industrial Tribunal held that the directions of the Labour Appellate Tribunal contained in paragraph 141 of its award were applicable also to conveyor-loaders.

4. The argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner in this case is that the decision of the Central Governme