Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) The important question is that the company, M/s. Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd., having gone to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter called as "the BIFR") can implement the award of the learned judge, 4th Industrial Tribunal, dated November 1, 2000, followed by the notification of the State of West Bengal, Labour Department, on July 31, 2001, or not. It is significant to note that this writ petition was filed on April 2, 2003.
(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that the case after being registered with the BIFR proceeded accordingly. A prima facie view was taken by the BIFR that the unit is not viable and the company would have to be wound up. Notice was also directed to be served upon the company to show cause as to why the winding up order should not be approved. However, an appeal was preferred from such order to the Appellate Authority, i.e., the AAIFR and the appeal was disposed of upon sanctioning a scheme of revival or rehabilitation in favour of the petitioner-company. Various modes were introduced thereunder for the purpose of payment to workers. Leave was also granted by saying that there is no bar to the mutual settlement between the workers and the management. The sanctioned scheme was sent to the BIFR for monitoring the same with the assistance of the IIBI as the monitoring agency. The BIFR is free to exercise its powers. The direction for advertisement was set aside. Now by moving this writ petition the company wants to establish that no effect of the award or publication of the award can be given when the matter is pending before the BIFR.
(3.) The records regarding the case initiated at the First Labour Court, West Bengal, Calcutta, for execution of the award be transmitted to this court for final disposal in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case. Save and except giving information to the Tribunal at the time of delivering the judgment that the company had been declared a sick industrial company and there cannot be any order of reinstatement, no materials on record had been shown to the Tribunal about the hardship of the management of the company in giving reinstatement to the workman in the service. However, in considering such circumstances the Tribunal held that a lenient view should be taken in the matter of payment of back-wages. Therefore, the order of dismissal was set aside and the company was directed to reinstate the workman with immediate effect and to pay him 50 per cent. wages right from the date of dismissal down to the date of reinstatement of other employees working therein who are getting their wages monthwise.;