BENGAL BOX MANUFACTURING COMPANY Vs. SECOND INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
LAWS(CAL)-1963-3-21
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on March 28,1963

Bengal Box Manufacturing Company Appellant
VERSUS
SECOND INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.N.BANERJEE, J. - (1.)THE petitioner -firm, Bengal Box Manufacturing Company, moved this Court with the grievance that an award of an industrial tribunal was made against the firm without service of notice on the firm and obtained this rule.
(2.)IT appears that the petitioner -firm has its principal place of business at No. 6, Rajkumar Chatterjee Road, in the town of Calcutta. This is evident from the certificate of registration of the petitioner -firm, issued by the Registrar of Firms, West Bengal. It is also admitted that the petitioner -firm has its factory at No. 4, Rajkumar Chatterjee Road, which is altogether a different premises. Respondents 5, 6, 7 and 8 were at one time employees under the petitioner -firm. They raised a dispute on the ground of alleged unlawful termination of their services. That dispute was taken up by respondent 9, the Press Employees' Association, and was converted into an industrial dispute. The State Government appears to have referred that dispute to the second industrial tribunal for adjudication.
The petitioner -firm alleges that neither at the stage of conciliation undertaken by a labour officer nor at any time after the matter was referred to an industrial tribunal for adjudication was there any service of notice on the petitioner -firm at its principal place of business. It appears that these were attempts of service of notice on the petitioner -firm at No. 4, Rajkumar Chatterjee Road, Calcutta, but such attempts failed either because the addressee could not be traced or because the notice came back with the endorsement 'refused.' Ordinarily I would have taken the endorsement 'refused' as evidence of good service on the petitioner -firm, but for the fact that the principal place of business of the petitioner -firm was not at No. 4, Rajkumar Chatterjee Road, but at No. 5, Rajkumar Chatterjee Road.

(3.)MR . Masud, learned advocate for the State Government, strongly argued that an office of the petitioner -firm was situated at No. 4, Rajkumar Chatterjee Road, Calcutta. Letters used to be sent to the petitioner -firm also at. No. 4, Rajkumar Chatterjee Road, and there was no reason why the notices went to the petitioner -firm at No. 4, Rajkumar Chatterjee Road, should not be taken to have been correctly addressed. The only laouna in this argument is that No. 4, Rajkumar Chatterjee Road, is not the principal place of business of the petitioner -firm and I am not prepared, in the circumstances of the case, to accept notices sent to the petitioner -firm, not at its principal place of business but elsewhere, as notices properly addressed.


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