N.K.Batabyal, J. - (1.) -The writ petitioner-company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of coal tar, petroleum products, water proofing and damp proofing belts etc. etc. The respondent no. 2, Smt. Sushila Gayen was never employed by the petitioner but was an employee of a licenced Contractor of the petitioner, named Shri Kanu Ganguli of Basudebpur, Triveni, Dist. Hooghly in connection with the work undertaken by the petitioner at Bandel Thermal Power Plant at Hooghly. The respondent no. 2 was never paid any wages by the petitioner for any work done by her at the said Plant. A criminal case was started against her on the ground of theft of materials from the said Thermal Power Plant when she was caught red-handed by the security guards of the said Plant while she was working as a workman of the Contractor mentioned above. Ultimately she was acquitted from that case. Before acquittal in the case respondent no. 2 wrote to the petitioner company requesting for re-employment with back wages. At that time the petitioner company first came to know about the anticedents of the respondent no. 2. Thereafter Conciliation proceeding was initiated before the Additional Labour Commissioner. Government of West Bengal. The petitioner company attended the said conciliation meeting and explained the position to the said Additional Labour Commissioner. However, in order to avoid getting into unnecessary litigation the petitioner company without prejudice to its rights and contentions took a sympathetic view in the matter and settled the same in course of the Conciliation proceeding before the said Labour Commissioner on payment of Rs. 1500/- in cash which was received in full and final settlement before the then Additional Labour Commissioner, West Bengal. The said settlement was recorded by the said Additional Labour Commissioner and the parties signed the settlement which was also signed by the Additional Labour Commissioner. True copies of the Tripartite Settlement signed by the parties and a receipt showing payment of the sum of Rs. 1500/- have been annexed with the writ petition and marked by letter "B". Clause 3 of the said Tripartite Settlement runs as follows :- "In case, the charge of theft against Smt. Gayen is not proved in the court where her case is pending, she may approach the principal employer for a job through any contractor under them in B.T.P.S. In that event, the Management would consider the prayer of Smt. Gayen provided any job of the nature of her lost job is then available".
(2.) In January 1990 the respondent no. 2 informed the petitioner that she had been exonerated from the charges in the Criminal Court and that she should be given an employment. But at that time the job at B.T.P.S. was over and the site was closed down. No employment could be offered to her. However, no question of employment could arise at all in view of the assertion of the writ petitioner that she was never an employee of the petitioner company. Thereafter she takes up the matter with the Conciliation Officer. Ultimately the Government of West Bengal by an order of reference dated 29th July, 1992 referred the following issues to the first respondent Tribunal for adjudication :- "Whether the termination of service of Smt. Gayen is justified? What relief, if any, is she entitled? A true copy of the said order of reference is annexed with the writ petition and marked with the letter "D".
(3.) The petitioner filed written statement in the said adjudication. True copy of the said written statement has been annexed with the writ petition and marked with letter "E".;