- (1.) This Rule is directed against an award, passed by the Sixth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, in the matter of an industrial dispute between Messrs. M. Mansukhlal and Company and one of their workmen, namely, Shri Chunilal Gobardhandas Seth, Chunilal was the cashier-cum-accountant of Mansukhlal and Company and his service was terminated with effect from January 31, 1955, by a notice, dated January 8, 1955, in which it was stated that step was| being taken on account of business depreciations. Thereupon, the workman Chunilal applied to the Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal, for relief, on January 11, 1955, through a Trade Union named Paschim Banga Gomosta Sabha but, subsequently, he withdrew the authority he had given to the said Union to represent his case and conducted his case personally before the Labour Commissioner. Thereafter, on April 9, 1956, the dispute was referred for adjudication to the aforesaid Tribunal by an order of the Government of West Bengal, passed under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947). In the said order the workman Chunilal Gobardhandas Seth was described as represented by Khimjee Hunsraj Employees' Union and the point for adjudication was described as follows: "Is the termination of service of Shri' "Chunilal Gobardhandas Seth justified? To what relief is he "entitled?"
(2.) Before the Tribunal the above mentioned Union appeared and filed a written statement on behalf of the workman, alleging that his services had been terminated without assigning any reason and that such termination without assigning any reason and that such termination involved unfair labour practice and claiming that he should be reinstated together with all the wages which he would have earned during the period of his forced unemployment. M. Mansukhlal and Company which will hereafter be described or referred to as the Company, filed a statement, resisting the workman's claim on the grounds inter alia that the employment of the workman had been terminated for the sake of economy and trade reasons as the Company was incurring losses in business and that he was not entitled to any compensation because he had ceased to attend office from the date on which he received notice of termination of employment. In a supplementary written statement the Company raised a preliminary legal objection to the effect that the dispute was not an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that, as such, the Tribunal was not competent to make any adjudication.
(3.) The Tribunal upheld the preliminary objection and, without entering into the merits of the case, passed an award to the effect that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference made by the Government, because the dispute was not an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal came to this finding mainly on two grounds, namely, (1) that it was the dispute of an individual workman, and (2) that there was no pre-existing dispute at the time the workman's employment was terminated. The award, made by the Tribunal was accepted by the Government and published in the "Calcutta "Gazette" of October 18, 1956, under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act.;