ORDER 1. THE RESPONDENT HEREIN CLAIMED THAT HE WAS APPOINTED AS SUPERVISOR LODNA AND BAGHDIGI COLLIERIES, WHICH WERE INITIALLY OWNED AND MANAGED THE COLLIERY-OWNERS AND IN LIEU THEREOF HE WAS BEING PAID SARDARI COMMISSION. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT ON 17-10-1971, THE COKING COAL MIN (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1971 CAME INTO FORCE AND BY VIRTUE OF THE SAID ACT, THE MANAGEMENT OF THE AFORESAID COLLIERIES WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE CENTER GOVERNMENT AND A CUSTODIAN WAS APPOINTED TO LOOK AFTER THE AFFAIRS OF AFORESAID COLLIERIES. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON 1-5-1972 THE COKING COAL MIN (NATIONALISATION) ACT, 1972 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE ACT") CAME I FORCE BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE EARLIER ACT WAS REPEALED. AS A RESULT ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT, THE RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE OWNERS IN RELATION THE COKING COAL MINES SPECIFIED IN THE SCHEDULE, STOOD TRANSFERRED TO VESTED ABSOLUTELY IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FREE FROM ALL ENCUMBRANCES THE AFORESAID COLLIERIES AFTER VESTING IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, VESTED BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED. AFTER THE AFORESAID ACT CAME INTO FORCE, REALISATION OF THE SARDARI COMMISSION WAS STOPPED, AS THE APPELLANT COMP ITSELF APPOINTED ITS EMPLOYEES FOR SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF LOADING OF C SUBSEQUENTLY, THE RESPONDENT HEREIN FILED A SUIT IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB-JUDGE, DHANBAD, BEING SUIT NO. 169 OF 1975 (4/82) FOR RECOVERY OF RS 75,000, THE AMOUNT OF PART-PAYMENT WITHHELD FROM 1-5-1972 TO DECEMBER A 1997 AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT FOR A PERIOD FROM 1-1-1975 TO 30-5-1975. THE APPELLANT WHO WAS ARRAYED AS DEFENDANT, FILED A WRITTEN STATEMENT WHEREIN IT WAS DENIED THAT THE APPELLANT WORKED AFTER COMING INTO FORCE OF THE ACT. THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT, ON APPEAL BY THE RESPONDENT, ALLOWED THE APPEAL AND THE SUIT WAS DECREED. THE LETTERS PATENT APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT WAS DISMISSED BY THE HIGH COURT. IT IS AGAINST THE SAID JUDGMENT, THE APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 2. AFTER HEARING LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE JUDGMENT UNDER CHALLENGE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE RESPONDENT IN HIS EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ADMITTED THAT HE NEVER WORKED AS SUPERVISOR IN THE COLLIERIES AFTER COMING INTO FORCE OF THE ACT. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY REMUNERATION OR COMMISSION AS ALLEGED BY HIM. THE RESPONDENT IN HIS EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ADMITTED THAT HE NEVER WORKED AS SUPERVISOR IN THE COLLIERIES AFTER COMING INTO FORCE OF THE ACT. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY REMUNERATION OR COMMISSION AS ALLEGED BY HIM. FURTHER, IF THE RESPONDENT CLAIMS THAT HE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PRIVATE COAL MINE-OWNERS, HIS SERVICES STOOD TERMINATED WHEN THE NOTIFICATION DATED 1-10-1972 WAS ISSUED. IF THE APPELLANTS CLAIM IS THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO THE COMMISSION UNDER A CONTRACT, THE SAID CONTRACT ALSO CAME TO AN END AFTER THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT. IN NONE OF THE CASES THE RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO ANY SUPERVISORY CHARGES AND, THEREFORE, THE SUIT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN DECREED. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT UNDER CHALLENGE AND RESTORE THE DECREE OF THE TRIAL COURT. 3. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.