DEBASISH KAR GUPTA, J. - (1.) This writ application is filed by the petitioner Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd., (formerly known as ANZ Grmdlays Bank Ltd.,) challenging the legality and validity of the order of reference No. L-12012/223/ 2000-IR (B-1) dated February 8, 2001 passed by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(a) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 referring the dispute relating to the order of dismissal from service passed against the respondent No. 6 to the respondent No. 5 for adjudication.
(2.) The respondent No. 6 was appointed as Clerk-Cum-Cashier under the petitioner on or about March 1, 1971. Pursuant to a circular, the respondent No. 6 applied for the post "Head Cashier Grade-1 on Special Rates of Pay". The respondent No. 6 was selected and appointed to the above post of "Head Cashier on Special Rates of Pay, Grade-I'' on probation with effect from May 12, 1978. The appointment of the respondent No. 6 to the above post was duly confirmed as per communication dated November 23, 1978. Thereafter the respondent No. 6 was promoted to the post of "Head Cashier on Special Rates of Pay, Grade-II" as per communication dated April 2, 1988. Subsequently, the respondent No. 6 was promoted to the post of "Head Cashier (SSRP, Job Grade-III)" with effect from August 1, 1992. He was posted at 41 Chowringhee Road branch under the petitioner. As per communication dated January 8, 1999 the petitioner bank called upon the respondent No. 6 to submit his explanations to the charges levelled against him in the above communication and placed him under suspension from the banks service pending further investigation against him. The respondent No. 6 submitted his reply dated January 10, 1999 to the above charges. The respondent No. 6 was given an opportunity to examine the documents relating to the charges levelled against, him and to appear in the interview on January 27, 1999 relating thereto. After adjournment of the interview on two occasions the respondent No. 6 appeared in the interview on April 28, 1999. The minutes of the proceeding was forwarded to the respondent No. 6 as per communication dated May 20, 1999. As per communication dated June 15, 1999 an order of punishment of "dismissal without notice" passed against the respondent No. 6 in terms of paragraph 4 of Section XVIII of the "terms of service of the Management Staff was served upon him. The respondent No. 6 made representations before the respondent No. 1 in connection with the aforesaid order of dismissal. The petitioner bank received a communication dated December 22, 1999 from the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Calcutta, the respondent No. 3, with a proposal to discuss the dispute in between the management of the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 over the order passed against the, respondent No. 6. The petitioner bank was also requested to submit detailed comments on the letter of the respondent No. 6 dated November 19, 1999. By a letter dated January 24, 2000 the petitioner raised a preliminary objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 3 to initiate conciliation proceedings with regard to the order of dismissal passed by the petitioner against the respondent No. 6. The petitioner enclosed all documents relating to the service of the respondent No. 6 thereto to show that the respondent No. 6 not being a workman, there could not be any "industrial dispute" and as such conditions precedent for conciliation proceedings were wholly absent. Pending consideration of the above preliminary objection raised by the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 as per communication dated March 24, 2000 fixed the date of holding joint discussion conciliation proceeding on April 4, 2000. The above notice was received by the petitioner on April 6, 2000 and as such the petitioner could not send its representative to the office of the respondent No. 3 on the date of conciliation proceedings on April 4, 2000. However, after receiving of the above notice, the petitioner intimated the respondent No. 3 of the reasons for not attending the hearing on April 4, 2000. Thereafter, as per communication dated May 23, 2000, the conciliation officer submitted the failure of conciliation report to the Central Government with his proposal to refer the dispute to the respondent No. 5 for adjudication. By communication dated November 7, 2000 the petitioner bank was requested to settle the dispute amicably by discussion with the respondent No. 6 and to furnish the comments to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India within 60 days, failing which there would be a presumption that there was no objection to the dispute being referred for adjudication. By a communication dated December 29, 2000 the petitioner bank raised objection to the proposal to refer the dispute to the respondent No. 5 pointing out that the respondent No. 6 not being a workman there could be no "industrial dispute". Ultimately the petitioner bank received the impugned order of reference No. L-12012/223/2000/IR(B-I) dated February 8, 2001 from the respondent No. 3 passed in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(a) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referring the dispute relating to the order of dismissal passed against the respondent No. 6 to the respondent No. 5, i.e. the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Calcutta for adjudication which is under challenge in the writ application.
(3.) Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner bank, submits that the respondent No. 6 was appointed in the managerial post with effect from May 12, 1978. But the respondent No. 3 without deciding the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner bank as to whether the respondent No. 6 was a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act forwarded his failure of conciliation report to the Central Government. Mr. Sengupta further submits that on receipt of the communication dated November 7, 2000 from the respondent No. 4 the petitioner bank as per communication dated December 29, 2000 raised objection to the proposal to refer the dispute to the respondent No. 5 categorically pointing out that the respondent No. 6 not being a workman there could be no "industrial dispute".;