Pratap Kr. Ray, J. - (1.) Challenging the award dated 22nd May, 1996 passed by the learned First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal in the matter being No. VIII-168/93 as published by the Government of West Bengal, Department of Labour by order No. 1032-IR/IR/LOL-119/93 dated 17th June, 1996 whereby and whereunder upon holding that Sri Monoranjan Chakraborty was not a workman under the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act hereinafter refer to as the said Act, the reference as made by Government of West Bengal Labour Department order No. 1368-IR/IR/IOL-119/92 dated 7th September, 1993 to determine the issue "whether the dismissal of Sri Monoranjan Chakrabortty (Workman) with effect from 24th October, 1991 from service is justified" and "what relief if any was he entitle to" was decided as non-maintainable due to jurisdictional point in view of finding that the concerned employee was not workman, this writ application has been filed by the said Sri Monoranjan Chakrabortty only on short point for decision as to whether the evidence on record as relied upon by the learned Tribunal in arriving said conclusion is perverse and arbitrary and/or passed on no evidence which will attract the field of judicial review of this Court.
(2.) The fact in brief are as follows:- Monoranjan Chakrabortty, writ petitioner joined the service as welder on 2nd July, 1962 in M/s. Bells Controls Limited, a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 hereinafter refer to as said company. It is an Engineering Industry engaged in manufacturing of different mechanical and electrical instruments. On promotion, the petitioner was transferred to the Electroplating Department upon designation as Supervisor. The petitioner's pay was fixed at the time as revised as per Engineering Industry wise tripartite settlement as was applicable to his service condition. Charge sheet being No. CS/DISP/91 dated 29th May, 1991 was issued on allegation that petitioner deliberately distorted the daily incentive report of workman of Electroplating Department, indulged in illegal activity by changing the part number, which was mentioned in the works order issued by Production Planning Department. It is further alleged that by way of doing it, the petitioner had intentionally manipulated the incentive points of new workman of Electroplating Department subjecting them with more incentive points by way of such falsification and petitioner himself had availed such advantage. On the aforesaid charge, petitioner was directed to explain upon holding that the said misconduct was violative of sub-clause II, XIII, XXIII and XXXI of Clause 13(b) of the Companies Certified Standing Order. The petitioner was suspended from service in pursuance of the provision as laid down in the Standing Order of the Company. After holding the domestic enquiry ultimately the petitioner was dismissed on said charges of misconduct as proved in terms of aforesaid clause of the said Certified Standing Order by the decision dated 24th October, 1991 as issued by Chief Executive of the said Company. The petitioner made a representation on 3rd January, 1992 which was forwarded by the union wherein the writ petitioner belongs namely Betoble Union Limited Workers Union and in response to such the Chief Executive of the said company by letter dated 17th January, 1992 rejected the prayer of reinstatement upon referring the fact that due to major misdemeanors in terms of Certified Standing Orders of the company domestic enquiry was properly held and petitioner was found guilty of the charges.
(3.) An industrial Dispute was raised by the concerned union and Government of West Bengal by Labour Department Order No. 1368-IR/IR/IOL-119/92 dated 7th September, 1993 had referred the said Industrial Dispute under section 10 read with Section 2A of the said Act for adjudication of the issues namely : "(a) Whether the dismissal of Sri Monoranjan Chakrabortty (Workman) with effect from 24.10.91 from service is justified (b) What relief, if any, is he entitled to - Respective parties namely the workman, present writ petitioner and the said company filed their written statements. Said company took a point that the reference was not maintainable as the delinquent was not a workman under section 2(s) of the said Act as the said employee was engaged as supervisor and his duty was supervision of general department, administration works namely incentive point distribution, recommendation and sanction of leave of the workman working under him and to take disciplinary action against the workman. It is further stated in the written statement that salary of the employee concerned was more than Rs. 1600 per month. In view of such, the learned Tribunal below decided the issue as a preliminary point as to whether the concerned employee was workman or not. On consideration of the evidence on record the said Tribunal came to a finding that the delinquent employee was not a workman in terms of Section 2(s) of the said Act and accordingly held that reference was not maintainable.;