The Tribunal has the power to consolidate proceedings and hear them analogously under Section 11(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which empowers the Tribunal to follow any procedure it thinks fit.

( 1 ) IN both the writ application being C. O. No. 4046 (W) of 1988 and C. O. No. 4047 (W) of 1988 the petitioner company namely, Westinghouse Saxby Farmer Ltd. has challenged the Award dated 27th September, 1987 passed by the 9th Industrial Tribunal, jointly in case of X-30/82 and X-31/82, which were heard analogously. By the said award it was directed that the dismissal of Shri K. B. Dalrami, workman respondent no. 1 and Shri A. K. Patra, workman respondent no. 2 in C. O. No. 4047 (W) of 1988 and Raj Behari Ram workman respondent no. 1 in C. O. No. 4046 (W) of 1988 are not justified and they are entitled to get reinstatement in their respective services from the date of their dismissal with all back wages, all allowances and all the benefits which they were entitled to get up to this day if they were in service. As Shri A. K. Patra died sometimes in August, 1984 during the pendency of the proceeding before the Tribunal and was substituted by his widow, it was held that his legal heirs were entitled to get the money by way of wages, allowances and other benefits covering into money, according to their respective share from the date from the date of dismissal of A. K. Patra till the date of his death.

( 2 ) THE petitioner company has challenged such Award on a number of grounds.

( 3 ) THE first contention of the petitioner company is that the reference itself was bad. It is contended that all the workmen were discharged from their service and were not dismissed; that the dispute in respect of K. B. Dalrami and A. K. Patra reference was made to the 9th Industrial Tribunal, Durgapur under section 10 of the Individual Disputes Act, whereas the dispute in the case of Raj Behari Ram was referred to the 9th Industrial Tribunal under section 10 read with section 2a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with the issue whether the dismissal of the workman concerned or justified or not. It is contended that since the workmen were not dismissed but discharged, such a reference was bad.

( 4 ) THE further contention of the petitioner company is that the Award and the entire proceeding are vitiated inasmuch as the Tribunal heard both the references analogously after consolidating the same although the Industrial Tribunal have no such power of consolidation of proceedings.

( 5 ) IT has been further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Award of the Tribunal is perverse inasmuch as material evidence was not taken into considerations and some of the findings were not based on any evidence at all.

( 6 ) IT has also been contended that in any event the Tribunal could not have directed the reinstatement of the workmen as the petitioner company lost confidence on the workmen.

( 7 ) MR. Amitabha Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner company in support of the contention that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consolidate the two disputes cases and therefore, such consolidation was wholly without jurisdiction vitiating the entire process including the Award, has contended inter alia, that unlike the Court a Tribunal has no inherent jurisdiction and under the Industrial Disputes Act only those powers under the Civil Procedure Code, to produce documents and witnesses order sections 11 (3) and 11 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 24 of the Industrial Disputes Rules have been conferred on the Industrial Tribunal. There is no provision in the Statute which empowers the Tribunal to consolidate two disputes cases. Therefore, the Tribunal could not consolidated two cases, heard the same analogously and disposed of the same by a common award. In his connection he has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Ganga Ram Tea Co. v. 2nd Labour Court and Anr. reported in 71 Calwn 14 where it was held by B. C. Mitra, J that the Industrial Tribunal is a statutory authority and therefore, has no inherent power, as also in the case of Sushil Kumar Sen Gupta v. State Transport Authority and Ors. report