Judgment R.A.Sharma, J. 1. The termination of service of Sri Diplal Singh (hereinafter referred to as the workman), workman of Bararee Coke Company Limited, led to the following reference under Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) made by the Central Government to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II Dhanbad, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal)- "Whether the action of the management of Bararee Coke Plant of Messrs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Post Office Kusunda, District Dhanbad in terminating the services of Sri Diplal Singh, Watchman with effect from October 19, 1971 vide Managements notice dated October 12, 1971 is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled? 2. The Tribunal gave its award dated January 12, 1983 answering the reference in favour of the workman holding that the termination of his service is illegal and accordingly directed his reinstatement with back wages with effect from May 1, 1972, the date on which the Coking Coal Mines were nationalized under the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Nationalisation Act.). Being aggrieved by the said award, the Bharat Coking Coal Limited (hereinafter referred to as the B.C.C.L.), which is a Government Company in which the assets of the Coking Coal Mines of Bararee Coke Company have vested after nationalisation, filed a writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 686/83(R), before this Court which was allowed and the award of the Tribunal was quashed by the learned Single Judge, vide Judgment dated July 18, 1989 holding that the reference and the award given by the Tribunal are illegal on account of Bararee Coke Company not being party thereto. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The sole question which is involved in this appeal is as to whether the reference and the award given by the Tribunal in favour of workman are bad on account of Bararee Coke Company not being a party thereto. 5. The Bararee Coke Company, which was a private undertaking having two coke plants, known as Bhullan Bararee Coke Plant and Bararee Coke Plant, in one of which the workman was employed as a Watchman, terminated the service of the workman with effect from October 19, 1971 vide order dated October 12, 1971. 6. 5. The Bararee Coke Company, which was a private undertaking having two coke plants, known as Bhullan Bararee Coke Plant and Bararee Coke Plant, in one of which the workman was employed as a Watchman, terminated the service of the workman with effect from October 19, 1971 vide order dated October 12, 1971. 6. The Parliament enacted the Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the Emergency Provisions Act) which provided for vesting of the management of all Coking Coal Mines in the Central Government with effect from the appointed day i.e. October 17, 1971. The said Act further provided for appointment of custodian to take over the management of Coking Coal Mines and pending such appointment the person in-charge of the management of such Mines immediately before the appointed day was to manage them for and on behalf of the Central Government. On December 27, 1971 the custodian appointed by the Government took over the management of the Coking Coal Mines Bararee Coke Company. Thereafter, the Parliament enacted the Nationalisation Act in 1972 which provided for nationalisation of Coking Coal Mines with effect from the appointed date May 1, 1972. 7. As mentioned hereinabove, the service of the workman was terminated with effect from October 19, 1971, that is to say, after October 17, 1971 on which date the management of the Coke Mines was taken over by the Central Government under the Emergency Provisions Act. It is true that the order of termination of service of the workman was passed on October 12, 1971 but it was enforced with effect from October 19, 1971 on which date his service was terminated. By virtue of the provisions contained in Sec. 4 of the Emergency Provisions Act, 1971, every person including the owner of the Coking Plant/Mine was deprived of the right and power of the management in relation to such Mines. Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 4 of the said Act, being relevant in this connection, reproduced below- "4. By virtue of the provisions contained in Sec. 4 of the Emergency Provisions Act, 1971, every person including the owner of the Coking Plant/Mine was deprived of the right and power of the management in relation to such Mines. Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 4 of the said Act, being relevant in this connection, reproduced below- "4. Management of coking coal mines, pending the appointment of Custodian - (1) Pending the appointment of a Custodian under Sec. 5 for any coking coal mine, the person in charge of the management of such mine immediately before the appointed day shall, on and from the appointed day, be in charge of the management of such mine for and on behalf of the Central Government; and the management of such mine shall be carried on by such person subject to the provisions contained in subsections (3) and (5) and such directions, if any, as the Central Government may give to him and no other person, including the owner, shall, so long as such management continues, exercise any powers of management in relation to the coking coal mine." 8. After enforcement of the Emergency Provisions Act with effect from October 17, 1971 the Bararee Coke Company could not have terminated the service of the workman on October 19, 1971 in its own right because it was divested of all its rights and power of management in relation to the Coking Coal Mines, The service of the workman will be deemed to have been terminated on the said date by the management for and on behalf of the Central Government. Therefore, only the Central Government or the B.C.C.L. in which the assets of coke plants/mines of the Bararee Coke Company have vested was the necessary party to the reference and the adjudication proceedings taken before the Tribunal pursuant thereto. It is admitted that the B.C.C.L. was a party to the reference and the adjudication proceedings before the Tribunal and in fact, it was heard by the Tribunal before giving the award. It is admitted that the B.C.C.L. was a party to the reference and the adjudication proceedings before the Tribunal and in fact, it was heard by the Tribunal before giving the award. Presuming that the Bararee Coke Company is a necessary party to an industrial dispute raised by its retrenched workmen even after nationalisation of its coking coal mines, in the instant case, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons given above, it was not necessary to implead the said company in the reference and the adjudication proceedings before the Tribunal. 9. Sec. 17 of the Nationalisation Act has provided for continuation of the service of the workman after the appointed day May 1, 1972. Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 17, being relevant in this connection, is quoted below- "17 (1) Every person who is a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and has been, immediately before the appointed day, in the employment of a coking coal mine or coke oven plant, shall become on and from the appointed day, an employee of the Central Government, or as the case may be, of the Government company in which the right, title and interest of such mine or plant have vested under this Act, and shall hold office or service in the coking coal mine or coke oven plant, as the case may be, on the same terms and conditions and with the same rights to pension, gratuity and other matters as would have been admissible to him if the rights in relation to such coking coal mine or coke oven plant had not been transferred to and vested in the Central Government or Government Company, as the case may be, and continue to do so unless and until his employment in such coking coal mine or coke oven plant is duly terminated or until his remuneration, terms and conditions of employment are duly altered, by the Central Government or the Government Company". The said Sec. 17 was substituted in 1986 but it is not necessary to reproduce the new Section as the same is not relevant for the controversy in the present case. The said Sec. 17 was substituted in 1986 but it is not necessary to reproduce the new Section as the same is not relevant for the controversy in the present case. 10 The Apex Court in The Workmen V/s. The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors (1978-II-LLJ-17)(SC), while interpreting the said Sec. 17, has laid down as under: "Sec. 17 is a special provision relating to workmen and their continuance in service notwithstanding the transfer from private ownership to the Central Government or Government company. This is a statutory protection for the workmen and is express, explicit and mandatory. Every person who is a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and has been, immediately before the appointed day, in the employment of a mine, shall become an employee of the Government or the Government company and continue to do so as laid down in Sec. 17. A workman is defined in the Industrial Disputes Act to mean any person employed in any industry (we omit the unnecessary words) and includes, any such person who has been dismissed and whose dismissal has led to a dispute. It is perfectly plain that the 40 workmen who were dismissed and whose dismissal led to the industrial dispute are workmen within the meaning of Sec. 17(1) of the Act. Irrefutably follows the inference that they are workmen entitled to continuance in service as provided for in Sec. 17. It is not open to any one to contend that because they had been wrongfully dismissed and, therefore, are not physically on the rolls on the date of the takeover, they are not legally workmen under the new owner. The subtle eye of the law transcends existence on the gross level. The statutory continuity of service cannot be breached by the wrongful dismissal of the prior employer. It is important that dismissal has been set aside and the award expressly directs reinstatement with continuity of service by the management for the time being namely, the Bharat Coking Coal Company Ltd." 11. The statutory continuity of service cannot be breached by the wrongful dismissal of the prior employer. It is important that dismissal has been set aside and the award expressly directs reinstatement with continuity of service by the management for the time being namely, the Bharat Coking Coal Company Ltd." 11. Sec. 17 protects not only the workmen who were in the employment of the coking coal mines immediately before the appointed day but also the workmen who were dismissed, removed or discharged from service before the said day ana whose dismissal, removal or discharge has been set aside by the Tribunal/Labour Court with the direction for the reinstatement with continuity of service. 12. As the Writ Petition was allowed and the award of the Tribunal was set aside on a technical ground, it is expedient in the interest of justice to remand the case to the appropriate Single Judge Bench. The question as to whether in the instant case the workman is entitled to the benefit of Sec. 17 as well as such other questions which may be raised by the parties are liable to be decided by the learned Single Judge at the first instance. 13. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The case is remanded to the appropriate Single Judge Bench for decision of the Writ Petition in accordance with law. No costs.