A. Lala, J. - (1.)The learned Judge of the 8th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal was in the seisen of an industrial dispute referred by the appropriate authority of the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal vide letter dated 19th April, 1999. The issues under such order of reference are as follows:
"(1) Whether denial of permanency to Shri Ashok Kumar Prosad by the Management is justified? (2) To what relief, if any, is he entitled?"

(2.)The Tribunal ultimately held by its award dated 22nd March, 2001 on the basis of the Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in 2001(1) LLJ 280 (Management of Panchamalai Estate v. D. Gnanasekharan) that law nowhere states that if the person has worked for more than 240 days in a year he is entitled to be regularised in service. Provision contained in Chapter V of the Industrial Disputes Act had been enacted merely to protect the right of the workmen from being illegally dismissed from the service. Section 25 of the said Act does not contemplate creation of any right of absorption in favour of any person. Considering the legal aspect the Tribunal held that it has no authority to direct the company for making the concerned staff to be permanent. Therefore, denial of permanency to the incumbent by the management is justified and accordingly he is not entitled to any relief whatsoever from the management.
(3.)Before hearing was concluded a workman/respondent herein made an application before the Tribunal under section 33A of the Act taking the plea that such workman was dismissed by the management when the industrial dispute in which the aforesaid award was passed in respect of the some other workmen was pending. The management did not take any permission of the Tribunal under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
;