- (1.) This writ application is directed against an order passed by the First Labour Court on 23rd March, 2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for deciding the maintainability of the application filed by the private respondent workman under Section 10(1B) as a preliminary issue.
(2.) The writ petitioner contends that the private respondent workman was appointed on 8th October, 2000 in the Managerial Rank with effect from 10th October, 2000. The said appointment was initially on probation for a period of one year. The nature of the job to be performed by the respondent No.4 involved periodic analysis of finished products from warehouse and jobs associated with quality control of inputs and finished products as per instruction of the Technical Manager. During the probationary period of service, the performance of the respondent No.4 was not found to be satisfactory. The Administrative Manager by a letter dated 30th November, 2000 had brought to the aforesaid fact to the notice of the Chairman. The respondent No.4 was also found to be absent from duty since 13th March, 2001 and the service of the respondent No.4 was found to be below the standard required of a Chemist. On 12th January, 2001, the Chairman of the Company had requested the respondent No.4 to look for a suitable employment elsewhere. Subsequently, on 12th February, 2001, the respondent No.4 was offered one month's salary without attendance so as to enable him to look for a suitable job in some other organization and in the meantime, he was advised to collect his one month's notice pay on 5th April, 2001. The respondent No.4, however, by two several letters dated 30th March, 2001 and 17th April, 2001 alleged that he was not allowed to enter the factory premises and the company had refused to allow him to attend to his work.
(3.) In view of lack of performance and inefficiency, the petitioner company was constrained to terminate the probationary period of service of the respondent No.4 by a letter dated April 18, 2001 within a period of 6 months from the date of appointment of the respondent No.4 as probation. After the termination of service of the respondent No.4, the said respondent raised an industrial dispute with the Conciliation Officer by a letter dated 1st May, 2001 and subsequently he referred the dispute to the Conciliation Officer under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 4th June, 2001 and 14th August, 2001 respectively. The management participated in the conciliation proceeding after having received the conciliation memos. It is contended that the dispute raised by the respondent No.4 before the Conciliation Officer suffered inherent lack of jurisdiction inasmuch as the said respondent was not a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent No.4 applied for a certificate regarding pendency of the conciliation proceeding on expiry of the period of 60 days and on that basis the Conciliation Officer had issued a certificate in Form "S" regarding pendency of the conciliation proceeding. On the basis of the said certificate, the respondent No.4 filed an application under Section 10(1B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the learned First Labour Court, West Bengal. The learned First Labour Court being the respondent No.3 on the basis of such application framed the following issues for adjudication:- a) Is the application of the workman/petitioner in the present form under Section 10(1B) of the I.D. Act, 1947 maintainable according to law? b) Whether the termination order dated 18.04.2011 and report of employment w.e.f. 15.03.2011 are illegal, wrongful, mala fide? c) Is the applicant entitled to relief as prayed for in the instant case and to what other reliefs, if any, is the applicant entitled to? 3. The learned Labour Court, thereafter, pronounced an ex parte award on 17th August, 2006 which, however, was set aside by an order dated 29th November, 2007 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.1661 of 2006 filed by the writ petitioner. The matter was remanded to the respondent No.3 without going into the merits of the case.;