STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. EIGHTH INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
LAWS(CAL)-1972-1-11
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on
January 13,1972
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Appellant
VERSUS
EIGHTH INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
Respondents
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)THIS Rule was obtained by the State of West Bengal and it is directed against an award of the 8th Industrial Tribunal holding that the reference made by the petitioner under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was not maintainable and the said. Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the case. The facts that lie in a short compass may be stated as follows :
(2.)AN industrial dispute arose between the opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 with regard to the termination of service of the opposite party No. 4- Sri Gopal Chandra Mallick, a mechanic under opposite party No. 2 company, without serving any notice or cause. The said workman had been serving the opposite party No. 2 company continuously about nine years. The respondent No. 3 - The Union-challenged the illegal and wrongful termination of service of the said opposite party No. 4 before the Labour Commissioner, Govt. of West Bengal and sought for its intervention. As the conciliation failed, on the 20th April, 1968, the State Government made a reference under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the dispute between M/s. Britania Talking Machine Company and their workmen to the 8th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, for adjudication on the following issues :
"whether the termination of employment of the opposite party No. 4. Sri Gopal Chandra Mallick, is justified ? What relief, if any, is he entitled to ?''
(3.)AT the time of hearing, before the Tribunals, a preliminary point was raised that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the issue in question referred to by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Tribunal made an award dated 15th April, 1969, rejecting the said reference upon the view that it was not maintainable as there was no industrial dispute. The Tribunal further held that the company in question was a "shop" within the meaning of section 2 (13) of the West Bengal Shops and Establishment Act, 1963, and it was not an "industry" within the meaning of section 2 (J) of Industrial Disputes Act and as such the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the case.
(2.)AN industrial dispute arose between the opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 with regard to the termination of service of the opposite party No. 4- Sri Gopal Chandra Mallick, a mechanic under opposite party No. 2 company, without serving any notice or cause. The said workman had been serving the opposite party No. 2 company continuously about nine years. The respondent No. 3 - The Union-challenged the illegal and wrongful termination of service of the said opposite party No. 4 before the Labour Commissioner, Govt. of West Bengal and sought for its intervention. As the conciliation failed, on the 20th April, 1968, the State Government made a reference under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the dispute between M/s. Britania Talking Machine Company and their workmen to the 8th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, for adjudication on the following issues :
"whether the termination of employment of the opposite party No. 4. Sri Gopal Chandra Mallick, is justified ? What relief, if any, is he entitled to ?''
(3.)AT the time of hearing, before the Tribunals, a preliminary point was raised that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the issue in question referred to by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Tribunal made an award dated 15th April, 1969, rejecting the said reference upon the view that it was not maintainable as there was no industrial dispute. The Tribunal further held that the company in question was a "shop" within the meaning of section 2 (13) of the West Bengal Shops and Establishment Act, 1963, and it was not an "industry" within the meaning of section 2 (J) of Industrial Disputes Act and as such the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the case.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.