- (1.) By an award dated March 24, 2011 passed in Case No. 51 of 2003 the learned Judge of the Second Labour Court, Kolkata, had, inter alia, allowed the application under Section 10(1B)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "Act", for short). By the said award the Court below had declared the dismissal order issued by the Company to be unlawful and illegal and directed the Company to reinstate the applicant, the workman, in service with full back-wages and other consequential benefits admissible as per the norms of the Company within a period of sixty days from the date of the passing of the award. The company had filed the present writ petition against the said award. A learned single Judge of this Court after hearing the writ petitioner-company as well as the respondent No. 6, i.e. the workman, by an order dated August 2, 2011, had, inter alia, granted stay of the operation of the impugned award till the disposal of the writ petition. 1A. The workman, i.e. the respondent No. 6, had taken out an application being CAN 10688 of 2011 praying for an order directing the writ petitioner-company to continue the workman in service and for an appropriate order for payment of money at an early date. This application was affirmed on November 22, 2011. Subsequently, the workman also filed a supplementary affidavit affirmed on September 27, 2012 alleging, inter alia, that after the dismissal from service of the Company, she had not been engaged as an employee in any establishment till the date of affirmation of the affidavit and she prayed for payment of money as awarded by the Court below as well as an order in her favour under Section 17-B of the Act. The writ petitioner-company has opposed this application by filing an affidavit.
(2.) Heard Mr. P.K. Drolia, the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant-respondent No. 6. He has placed the relevant portion of the impugned award as well as the supplementary affidavit affirmed by the workman.
(3.) Mr. Soumya Majumder, the learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner-company, had vehemently opposed this application on the ground that the workman was never a permanent employee of the writ petitioner-company and the award passed by the learned Judge of the Court below is not made sustainable inasmuch as the most vital issue that ought to have been raised by the Court below has not been raised. Mr. Majumder submits that the crux of the dispute between the writ petitioner-company and the workman was whether the termination of the workman was bad and the Court below not having raised this as an issue could not come to the conclusion as it did.;