- (1.) This is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. which is a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 1919 and carried on business of generation and distribution of electricity for reward is the petitioner. One Amaresh Roy, being respondent No. 2 in the present application was employed as a clerk in the Revenue Department of the petitioner. On 3rd August, 1976, the petitioner dismissed Amaresh Roy on the alleged ground of misappropriation of moneys belonging to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of dismissal no conciliation bceedings, as envisaged under the Instrial Disputes Act, 1947 were pending oetween the petitioner and its workmen before any Conciliation Officer. But, as a matter of abundant caution the petitioner, the petitioner states, made an application before the joint Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal, being respondent No. 1 herein, for approval of the action taken against the respondent No. 2. Before the respondent No. 1 the petitioner had contended that there was no conciliation proceeding pending before any Conciliation Officer. The petitioner recorded the said contention, in writing by a letter dated 21st Dec. 1976 addressed to the respondent No. 1. At the time of the hearing the petitioner also made the said contention orally. The petitioner invited the respondent No, 1 to decide said question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. By an order dated 5th April, 1977 the respondent No. 1 has held that certain conciliation proceedings were pending between the petitioner and the workmen on 3rd Aug. 1976 and the provisions of S. 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were attracted to this case. The first respondent has therefore reserved consideration of the question of approval. The respondent No. 1 has held that in respect of two disputes, viz. the dispute as to age verification and the disputes raised by the four Trade Unions of the petitioner's workmen by Charter of Demands in 1975, were pending on the date of order of dismissal. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 5th April, 1977, the petitioner has moved this application under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained a rule nisi. It is, therefore, necessary to consider whether the said order dated 5th April,, 1977 is illegal or bad which can be corrected by any appropriate order under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) Now, as mentioned hereinbefore,. on two points, the respondent No. 1 has held that the conciliation proceedings were pending viz. the dispute as to ageverification and secondly the disputes raised by four Trade Unions of the petitioner's workmen by Charter of Demands. There was another dispute on which the petitioner had thought that it might be contended that the conciliation proceedings were pending, viz. absence due to sickness. On that point the contention of the petitioner company was that it could not be said that until the opinion had been obtained from the Legal Remembrancer, Government of West Bengal that any conciliation proceeding was pending on a matter on which there could have been any industrial dispute because, according to the petitioner, that point had remained unsettled. The respondent No. 1 by his impugned order has held that on this aspect the company's contention correctly represents the actual position. No grievance is made as to that finding of the respondent No. 1.
(3.) As regards the question whether there was any dispute as to age verification the facts were that the Unions of the workmen of the Company had raised an industrial dispute regarding the contents of the Company's notice dated 10th April,1976. A joint conference was held before the respondent No. 1 on 2nd June, 1976; and it transpired, according to the petitioner, in the meeting that the contents of the aforesaid notice were in accordance with the relevant clause of the standing order and it could not be said that the question was the subject matter of any industrial dispute. There were certain methods of age verification contemplated by the standing order. The Union contended that the company by its letter was insisting on age verification which was not in compliance with the requirement of the standing orders. Therefore, there was a dispute on that question. That dispute was raised and was taken up by the respondent No. 1 as Conciliation Officer and on this issue a joint conference was held on 2nd June, 1976. Therefore, it appears that there was conciliation proceeding pending because that point had not been settled at the relevant date that is to say, on 3rd Aug. 1976.;