R.J. Bhave JUDGMENT
R.J. Bhave, J.
By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari for quashing certain orders passed by Sri G.C. Agarwal, presiding officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur.
The petitioners, Karam chand Thapar & Bros, work as managing agents of United Collieries, Ltd. The present petition relates to a dispute regarding a workman, namely, Gyan Chand Sharma, who was in the employment of the petitioner at the North Chirimiri Colliery. It is alleged by the petitioners that the duties of Gyan Chand Sharma were of a managerial nature and sometimes he worked as a manager as well. By an order dated 10 February 1965, Gyan Chand Sharma was transferred to another unit, namely, Sounda Colliery, situate in district Hazaribagh in the State of Bihar. The order of transfer was not carried out by Gyan Chand Sharma. Hence, the management Initiated disciplinary action against him and he was ultimately dismissed. The workmen of the North Chirimiri Colliery, through the secretary, Madhya Pradesh Colliery Workers' Federation, raised a dispute and at their Instance the Central Government, acting order Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bombay. The dispute was referred in the following terms:
Whether the dismissal from service of Gyan Chand Sharma with effect from 19 July 1965, was Justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?
The reference was, however, withdraws from the Bombay tribunal and was transferred to the Jabalpur tribunal under the orders of the Central Government, dated 17 September 1966. On the said transfer, the Jabalpur tribunal fixed the case for further proceeding on 17 October 1866. On that date certain issues were framed and the parties were directed to file documents and the case was adjourned to 5 November 1966. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 17 November 1966 for recording evidence. On that date, Gyan Chand sharma was examined on behalf of the workmen and he was cross-examined by the petitioners and the case was adjourned to 6 December 1963. On 6 December 1966, the petitioners made an application for recalling Gyan Chand Sharma for further cross-examination inter alia on the ground that on the previous hearing the witness could not be cross-examined on all relevant points as the petitioners were sot in a position to scrutinize all the documents filed on behalf of the workmen at the time of the evidence, and that it was necessary to draw the attention of the witness to certain documents which were linked to the dispute raised. The tribunal disposed of the said application thus:
The application of the management to recall Gyan Chand Sharma for further examination is found belated and is rejected. This application was moved at the very commencement of the hearing.
The proceedings were continued thereafter and when the petitioners' witness Tulsiram was being examined, an objection was raised on behalf of the workmen that he could not be allowed to be examined to prove facts showing that Gyan Chand Sharma was not a workmen and that, therefore, could not be a member of the union. This objection was sustained by the tribunal. At this stage, the petitioners applied for adjournment on the ground that they intended to file a writ petition In the High Court and obtain the stay order from there. On this, the tribunal granted the adjournment subjects to payment of Rs. 100 an costs to the opposite party.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners first contended that the transfer of the reference from the Bombay tribunal to the Jabalpur tribunal was invalid and that the Jabalpur tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with the reference. This contention Is based on the ground that though the Central Government by its order dated 17 September 1966 directed the transfer of........