Amareshwar Sahay, J.

1. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, by a common award dated 16/01/1992 disposed of two reference cases, i.e. Reference Case No. 32/1989 and Reference Case No. 35/1989. The Reference Case No. 32/1989 arose out of the dispute referred by the Central Government Under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, whereby the following dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for adjudication: Whether the Action of the Management of Sudamdih Colliery of M/s BCCL in denying employment to Shri karma Rout and 21 others with effect from 09/07/1977 is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?

2. The Reference Case No. 35/1989 arose out of the dispute referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1. Dhanbad under Section 10(10(d) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947, whereby the following dispute was referred for adjudication: Whether the action of the management of Sudamdih Area of M/s BCCL in denying employment to Sh. Bhagwat Singh and 3 others, viz. Shri Sapan, Karan Sahi and Shanti Thakur, who were engaged as sump clearing mazdoors is justified? If not, to what reliefs are the workmen entitled?

3. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal by the aforesaid award directed the Management to reinstate the workmen with 75% of the back wages and passed the following direction in Reference Case No. 32/1989. The operative part of the order is quoted hereinbelow:

The action of the management of Sudamdih Colliery of M/s BCCL in denying employment to Shri Karma Rout and 21 others, as mentioned above, with effect from 09/07/1977 is not justified. The Management is directed to reinstate them in service within one month from the date of publication of the awards and to pay them wages as per N.C.W.A. and 75% of back wages from the date of reference (16.03.1989) till they are allowed to resume duty.

4. By the said award the following direction was made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in Reference Case No. 35/1989:

The action of the Management of Sudamdih Area of N/s BCCL in denying employment to S/Shri Sapan Banerjee, karan Sahi and Shanti Thakur is not justified. The management is directed to reinstate them in service within one month from the date of publication of the award and to pay them wages as per N.C.W.A. and 75% of back wages from the date of reference (20.03.1989) till they are allowed to resume their duties. The workmen were directed to report for duties within one month from the dale of publication of the award.

5. The common award of both the aforesaid two reference cases were challenged before this Court in its writ jurisdiction by filing two separate writ applications being CWJC No. 856/1993 (R) (arising out of Reference Case No. 32/1989) and CWJC No. 859/1993 (R) (arising out of Reference Case No. 35/1989), by the Management of Sudamdih Colliery.

6. This Court heard both the writ applications together and by a common judgment dated 10/08/1998 dismissed both the writ applications and the Management was directed to reinstate the workmen covered by Reference Case No. 32/1989 and 35/1989 within six weeks from the date of the Judgment and to pay the back wages as directed in the said judgment.

7. The management, thereafter, preferred two Letters Patent Appeals against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge being LPA No. 424/1998 and 425/1998. The Division Bench of this Court by a common judgment dated 17/05/1999 dismissed both the Letters Patent Appeals. The management, thereafter, filed two Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court and after the Special Leave was granted the same were registered as Civil Appeal No. 1902/2000 and Civil Appeal Nom 1903/2000 before the Supreme Court.

8. The Supreme Court by its judgment dated 16th January 2006 held as follows:

It appears that the Tribunal and the High Court did not consider the factual position in the background of the legal position as