- (1.) The writ Petitioners in this proceeding have challenged an award passed by the Fifth Industrial Tribunal directing reinstatement of the Respondent No. 3 with 50% of back wages with effect from 20th July, 2001. The proceeding in which the award was passed arose out of an industrial dispute raised by the Paschim Banga Nirman Karmi Union, being the Respondent No. 4 in the writ petition, over allegation of illegal termination of the service of the Respondent No. 3. Reference was made by the State Government to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal for adjudication on the following issues. (1) Whether termination of services of Shri Tapas Das by the management w.e.f. 20.07.2001 is justified? (2) What relief, if any, is the workmen entitled to?
(2.) As it appears from records, the Respondent No. 3 was initially engaged by the Petitioner No. 1 in the month of April, 1993 and his service, described as a site supervisor in the organisation was confirmed with effect from 1st April, 1994. This appears from the letter of appointment of the Respondent No. 3, a copy of which has been made Annexure "PI" to the writ petition. The service of the Respondent No. 3 was terminated by a letter dated 20A June, 2001 on the ground that the company was going through a lean period of business. The letter of termination however specified that as the company was unable to utilise the service of the Respondent No. 3 in a manner beneficial to the company, his termination was sought to be effected. Clause 8 of the letter of appointment contained stipulation for termination upon giving a notice of one month. The industrial dispute originated from this letter of termination.
(3.) The respective parties filed their written statements before the Tribunal. The company (i.e. the Petitioner No. 1) took preliminary objection on maintainability of the order of reference on two grounds. The first one was that the Respondent No. 3 was not a workman. The second ground was that the union, which espoused the cause of the Respondent No. 3 had no representative character to represent any employee of the company. Evidence was led on behalf of the respective parties before the Tribunal. The character of the Respondent No. 3 as a workman was disputed on the basis that he was discharging supervisory duties in course of employment.;