The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of review is limited and can only be exercised on specified grounds. The court also clarified that the dispute must fall within the terms of reference for adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

I.A. No.5751 of 2018 in C. Rev. No.85 of 2012 and

I.A. No.2270 of 2016 in C. Rev. No.86 of 2012

Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners prayed to pass appropriate order in these two interlocutory applications since according to him, the relief sought for in these two applications are having significance for proper appreciation of the grounds agitated in the review petitions.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent BCCL is fair enough to agree for disposal of the interlocutory applications on their own merit.

3. Accordingly, this Court has thought it proper to first deal with the relief sought for in the interlocutory applications before going into the merit of the issue raised in the review petitions.

4. These two interlocutory applications have been filed for calling upon certain documents i.e. attendance registers, which according to the review petitioners, are necessary for proper adjudication of the issue.

The ground upon which the interlocutory applications have been filed seeking a direction to call upon the relevant documents at this stage has seriously been opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the management BCCL. It has been submitted on behalf of learned counsel appearing for the BCCL that the documents, at this stage, would not be proper to be appreciated by this Court that too when the question of review of an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 33 of 2007 and L.P.A. No. 55 of 2007 is in issue.

It has further been submitted that the document is to be seen on the basis of the nature of dispute. According to him, the question, which has been agitated herein by the review petitioners, is to consider the action of the respondent management in taking work through the contractor as camouflage and sham but the reference is altogether different and as such, according to him, when the issue does not pertain to an adjudication with respect to a declaration about camouflage and sham transaction in case of work taken by the contractor for the principal employer, i.e., the management BCCL, a specific reference was required to be made and only then the relevance of the documents could be considered.

In that view of the matter, the relief sought for in these two interlocutory applications was opposed by making a submission for its rejection.

5. This Court, after having heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating their submission and, after going across the pleadings made in these two interlocutory applications, deem it fit and proper first to refer to the terms of reference in order to assess the nexus of the said document with the dispute.

The dispute pertains to two reference cases, first being Reference Case No. 32 of 1989 and another is Reference Case No. 35 of 1989. The following references have been made in both the reference cases, which reads hereunder as :-

“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?”

The aforesaid reference has been numbered as Reference Case No.32 of 1989.

“Whether the action of the management of Sudamdih Area of M/s BCCL in denying employment to Shri 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?”

This reference has been numbered as Reference Case No.35 of 1989.

It is evident from the terms of reference that the Industrial Adjudicator was required to give a finding with respect to justification of denying employment to workmen from 09.07.1977.

There is no reference about a declaration by the Industrial Adjudicator about camouflage and sham transaction, in view of the allegation made by the workmen that the work has been taken from them through the contractor but for the principal e