KHUSHAL SHAMRAOJI RANDIVE Vs. GARDEN REACH SHIP BUILDERS AND ENGINEERS LTD
LAWS(CAL)-1996-9-20
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 12,1996

KHUSHAL SHAMRAOJI RANDIVE Appellant
VERSUS
GARDEN REACH SHIP BUILDERS AND ENGINEERS LTD. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MOHINI V. G.M.,SYNDICATE BANK [REFERRED TO]
TAPAS KUMAR JANA V. THE GENERAL MANAGER,CALCUTTA TELEPHONES AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAMA SINGH V. MANAGING DIRECTOR. U.P. CO-OPERATIVE UNION AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
GOPAI LAL TELI V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
TAPAN MONDAL AND ORS. V. EASTERN COALFIELD LTD. AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
ARINDAM CHATTERJEE V. COAL INDIA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
BASANT KUMAR SARKAR JANKINATH BANERJEE SITARAM SHAW VS. EAGLE ROLLING MILLS LIMITED:KUMARDHUBI ENGINEERING WORKS LIMITED:KUMARDHUBI FIRE CLAY AND SILICA WORKS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
BABURAM PRAKASH CHANDRA MAHESHWARI VS. ANTARIM ZILA PARISHAD NOW ZILA PARISHAD MUZAFFAMAGAR [REFERRED TO]
SUKHDEV SINGH THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION THE L 1 C LIMITED THE INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. BHAGATRAM SARDAR SINGH RAGHUVANSHI:THE ASSOCIATION OF CLASS II OFFICERS 0 N G C:SHYAM LAL SHARMA:THE INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPN [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. KRISHNA KANT [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A.Kabir, J. - (1.)The writ petitioner, who had been employed as structural Fitter III at the main yard, ship building, shop No. 113, of the respondent company at Metiaburs, has challenged the charge-sheet dated 10th March, 1993, issued to him by the Manager(Hall)-I, the finding of the Enquiry Officer dated 14th March, 1995, and the final order of dismissal passed against him on 25th April, 1995, by the Director (personnel) of the company.
(2.)When the writ application was taken up for consideration at the very initial stage, a preliminary objection was taken by Mr. Dipak Ghosh, learned advocate, appearing for the respondents, that the Same was not maintainable, inasmuch as, the petitioner was a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended by the State of West Bengal, and that his remedy, therefore, lay not by way of a writ petition, but under the provisions of the said Act.
(3.)Mr. Ghosh also contended that since the petitioner's service conditions were governed by Standing orders certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946, and since it had been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that such certified standing orders did not have statutory force, the remedy, if any, of the petitioner lay within the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was a complete code by itself, and not by way of a writ petition.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.