Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) In this writ petition order of the Learned Judge, Third Industrial Tribunal being dated 13th September, 2000 is under challenge. The petitioner's case is that the respondent No. 3 cannot be termed as "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the petitioner, it was known to the management that although the management gave him employment as "store keeper" but executed the Power of Attorney in his favour to look after the company's affairs independently by discharging administrative and managerial functions. His principal duties were changed. He was looking after the State Insurance, Provident Fund, Central Excise and other like matters. He also started representing the company before the Government as well as other authorities. He certified the employees on behalf of the company to refer their cases to the doctors under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme. He was making correspondence on behalf of the management with the employees in case of settlement of Provident Fund dues. He was representing the management for assessment of the claims of Central Excise and banks independently. He was looking after the property tax matters. He was representing the Panchayat authorities. He was keeping supervisory or administrative control over the employees in getting their respective services. He was looking after the respective purchase of the company for the prospective buyers. In fact, he got the faith and trust of the management in respect of such service. Subsequently the management had shockingly observed that taking advantage of the faith and trust the respondent No. 3 misappropriated the company's properties and funds. Inspite of further advice for a number of occasions he failed to change or improve himself. His contract of employment was determined with effect from. 19th May, 1999. The manner of misappropriation of properties and funds are available in the petition and annexures which are the subject matter of investigation of facts not necessarily to be gone into by this Court.
(2.) The workman referred to matter to the appropriate Labour Commissioner and ultimately through the appropriate Government the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for the purpose of adjudication of the following issues : (1) Whether the dismissal of Sri Nemai Ghosh is justified? (2) To what relief, if any, he is entitled to? During the course of hearing the respondent No. 3 made an application under Section 15(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (West Bengal Amendment) about determination of quantum of admissible interim relief. In such application, the management took out in defence that such application is not maintainable in law because the person concerned is not "workman" and no prima facie case is available in favour of the workman to succeed in the matter. The Tribunal ultimately held in favour of the workman and granted interim relief which is impugned hereunder. The Tribunal held that for the purpose of determination as to whether the respondent No. 3 is workman or not the prime document should be the appointment letter under which he was directed to work as "store keeper" but not the Power of Attorney under which he was entrusted to do certain additional duties. The Power of Attorney ceases to be operative as soon as the same is revoked. In that case the workman surely continue his duties as "store keeper". Thus, having plausible chance of success as a prima facie case, the interim relief is granted.
(3.) From the orders impugned I find that the Power of Attorney was exhibited before the Tribunal as "Exhibit-A". Therefore, it is crystal clear that the Tribunal had opportunity to go into the nature of the Power of Attorney to come to an appropriate conclusion. Such Power of Attorney annexed hereunder seems to have been executed on 21st May, 1994 as General Power of Attorney. The dispute arose by way of termination of service on 10th May, 1999. From the statement made in the writ petition it appears that the Power of Attorney was executed after mine to ten years of service. Therefore, it can safely be said that the workman rendered his service as "store keeper" for about nine to ten years and administrative or managerial capacity on the basis of such Power of Attorney was for about five years. In such circumstances, a Tribunal should not proceed on the basis of the letter of appointment or nomenclature of the service but by the nature of service. Although a Power of Attorney is revocable in nature but if it is not revoked for more than nine to ten years of service any Court or Tribunal should be much more cautious in determining the nature of service only on the revocability of such document. Likewise if for a substantial period of service, a workman discharges his duties by virtue of the Power of Attorney as a representative of the management the same analogy will be the guiding factor for due consideration. In other words, the execution of Power of Attorney is not made for any special purpose of for a specific period which is so short in nature that from the plain reading it will be understood that such Power of Attorney is nothing but power given to a workman to incidental discharge duties for such period. In further, the Tribunal never tested the veracity on the basis of other exhibits annexed hereunder to understand the real characteristic of such disputed question nor discussed anything in this regard. If such Power of Attorney is already revoked there is no difficulty to come to a finding that the document is revocable in nature. But when it is yet to be revoked, revocability will be understood not only on the plain reading of such document but on the basis of other exhibits, otherwise the basis of finding would be no more than surmise or conjecture.;