TITAGHUR PAPER MILLS CO., LTD. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1961-10-7
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on October 04,1961

Titaghur Paper Mills Co., Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.N.BANERJEE, J. - (1.) UNDER the petitioner company respondent 3, Sudhir Kumar Sen Gupta, was a junior supervisor, outside department, in mill 1 of the company.
(2.) AT a time when an industrial dispute between the petitioner company and its workmen over payment of profit -sharing bonus for 1954 -55 was pending before an industrial tribunal, respondent 3 was charged with misconduct, namely: (i) for having allowed a suspended worker to continue to work in the mill and to draw his wages, being all the time aware of the suspension of the said worker; (ii) for having falsely identified another person as Suraj Maharaj in order to enable him by false personation to withdraw provident fund money belonging to the said Suraj Maharaj; and (iii) for having helped a person to impersonate as Lakhman, a worker in the petitioner's mill, and to work as such. At the departmental enquiry held against respondent 3, he was found guilty of all the charges and thereafter there was a letter of dismissal, dated 10 January 1958, sent to him which was to the following effect: You have been found guilty of all the charges as embodied in our charge letter quoted above and accordingly you are hereby dismissed with immediate effect. We are submitting an application to the tribunal for the approval of the order of dismissal and in the meantime you are offered one month's salary and allowances. With regard to your provident fund dues', please address a letter to the trustees of the Titaghur Paper Mills Clerks' and Workers' Provident Fund through us requesting settlement.
(3.) THE petitioner alleges that although one month's wages payable to respondent 3, under the proviso to Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), had been offered to and kept available to him, respondent 3 did not accept the same. On 29 January 1958, the petitioner filed an application, under Section 33(2) of the Act, for approval of the action taken against respondent 3 before the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, before which the dispute as to bonus between the petitioner and Its workmen was pending. Inasmuch as respondent 3 had refused to accept his wages, even though offered, the petitioner remitted the money to respondent 3 by money order, on 3 January 1958. The respondent 3 contested the said application by filing a written statement.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.