Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. - (1.) The Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, by its award which was published on October 12, 1967, declared that the refusal of employment to the Petitioner's workmen Dwarik Shaw and Narendra Nath Giri was illegal and unjustified. The Tribunal directed the Petitioner company to reinstate both of them with all back wages and other allowances, if any, since June 20, 1964.
(2.) Mr. Amal Chandra Roy, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner company, has submitted that the said award of the Third Industrial Tribunal is illegal and without jurisdiction. In the first place, Mr. Roy has contended that the dispute in question is an individual dispute and not an industrial dispute and accordingly, reference made by the State Government under Sec. 10(1) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was invalid. The second submission made on behalf of the Petitioner is that the Tribunal did not afford reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner company to contest the said case inasmuch as the Tribunal did riot grant adjournment of the case on August 3, 1967. There was thus, according to the Petitioner company, violation of the principles of natural justice. Lastly, it has been contended that, even assuming the Tribunal had acted within its jurisdiction by ordering reinstatement of' the two workmen concerned, it should not have awarded full wages to the workmen as there was evidence that these workmen had been working elsewhere.
(3.) In my view, there is no substance in the contention that the reference under Sec. 10(1) was incompetent and that the dispute in question was not an industrial dispute The evidence in this case is that the Petitioner company had three employees including the two workmen concerned at Barrackpore and rest of their employees were serving under them at Burdwan. All the three employees including the two workmen concerned were members of the Barrackpore Bus Employees' Union. The said Barrackpore Bus Employees' Union had sponsored the dispute and had represented the two workmen concerned in the conciliation proceeding which preceded the reference. The Petitioner company had addressed communications to the said Bus Employees' Union thereby impliedly recognising their status as a representative body on behalf of the two workmen concerned. Mr. Banerjee on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 has also drawn my attention to the fact that the claim of the Barrackpore Bus Employees' Union in its written statement filed before the Tribunal that k was the representative body of the Bus Employees of Bus Syndicate, Barrackpore, was not traversed by the Petitioner company in its written statement filed before the Tribunal.;