and submitted that the Tribunal had misdirected itself in framing the question.
12143 12214 of 1984.
Following are disputes set out in the order Whether the employees of canteen engaged and employed by MECON Welfare Committee companysisting of the representatives of MECON Non executive Employees Union, MECON Executive Association and numberinees of MECON are entitled to the same service companyditions as are applicable to the employees of the VIP Guest House and of the Tea Club who are employed and engaged by MECON?
Thereafter, the State Government was directed to refer the disputes to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 2 of the Act for adjudication.
In view of the nature of work performed by the Canteen employees engaged and employed by MECON Welfare Committee, are they justified in law in asking for parity with the employees of MECON working in the VIP Guest House and the Tea Club keeping in view that the total number of the canteen employees are only 25 and the said Canteen run by Mecon Welfare Committee is a number statutory and number recognised canteen?
Learned single judge dismissed the preliminary objection of the canteen Sabha and upheld the order of the Tribunal and declined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It was said that the question referred as directed by the Supreme Court clearly implied that the workers of the canteen were employed by the Mecon Welfare Committee, distinct from MECON and the question was whether those persons were liable to be treated as employees of the MECON.
Hence the present appeal by the Canteen Mazdoor Sabha.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties perused the record.
Since the question was wrongly framed, therefore, the wrong answer has been given by the Tribunal.
On 19.10.1992, the writ petition came up for final disposal and it was stated in the order that the parties agreed that a joint reference under Section 10 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act be made to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the disputes between Sabha and Mecon.
The writ petition was filed by the Canteen Mazdoor Sabha in the Apex Court and this Court by order dated 23rd February, 1987 directed to list the matter after the judgment was pronounced in writ petition Nos.
Consequently, the Division Bench set aside the order of the Tribunal as well as the order of the single Judge and dismissed the writ petition.
Aggrieved against this order the MECON approached the division bench by filing the appeal, and the division bench after properly companystruing the matter came to the companyclusion that the canteen was run by the Canteen Welfare Committee for the welfare of the staff and workmen of Mecon.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
If so, from what date?
This award was challenged by the MECON by filing writ petition in the High Court.
This was opposed by the Canteen Sabha and a preliminary objection was raised to the effect that the writ petition was number maintainable.
1587 OF 2005 K. MATHUR, J. This Appeal is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Letters Patent Appeal No.
382/1997 whereby the Division Bench by order dated 23rd December, 2003 set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Award of the Industrial Tribunal holding that the workers of the canteen of Metallurigical and Engineering Consultant India Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Mecon run by Mecon Welfare Committee be treated at par with the employees working in the VIP Guest House and Tea Club of Mecon and granting them all the benefits given to those employees and to treat them as employees of Mecon.
