D.K.Jain, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by company management against the order upholding the jurisdiction of 'Ninth' Industrial Tribunal for adjudication on the issue whether termination of service of one Ravi Soren was justified. The said Industrial Tribunal had not only taken the evidence on the merit of the issue but had even finally heard the argument but unwisely had decided only preliminary point in regard to jurisdiction and has held that there is no industrial dispute' and consequently no jurisdiction for adjudication. The respondents challenged this finding of the Industrial Tribunal in the Court and the learned single Judge in writ matter bearing C.O.No. 10224(W)/87 has reversed the finding vide judgment dated August 7, 1989 and in consequence remitted the case to the Tribunal for adjudication. Being aggrieved, the management has filed this appeal to challenge the validity of aforesaid reference.
(2.) The facts of the case may be briefly noticed. It is an admitted position that the respondent No. 2 Ravi Soren was given an employment in the company on compassionate ground on December 2, 1977 after the death of his elder brother Gopi Soren who was an employee of the company. The respondent No. 2 was given an employment who it was asserted that the wife of deceased Gopi Soren has deserted him in his life time and had even remarried and consequently was neither entitled to employment nor the maintenance. However, the company had received the complaint from Smt. Surojmani Soren as to the failure of the respondent No. 2, Ravi Soren to maintain her and even she had stated the claim for employment as the wife of late Gopi Soren. The necessary enquiries were made by the management and such enquiries justified the claim of Smt.Surojmani Soren both for maintenance as also for employment. As the respondent No. 2 has refused to maintain Smt. Surojmani Soren and had even obtained the employment by denying the status of her being the wife of late Gopi Soren, the company terminated the services of the respondent No. 2 on December 17, 1981. The respondent No. 2 disputed the termination immediately on the next day and demanded his reiastatement. The co-workers of the respondent No. 2 also supported him and even threatened industrial unrest on the next day of the termination order. The controversy could not be resolved in the conciliation proceedings and the failure report was submitted to the Government of West Bengal. The dispute was then referred to the 'Ninth' Industrial Tribunal vide order of the Labour Department of the Government of West Bengal dated January 18, 1984. The reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act has clearly mentioned in the aforesaid issue whether the termination of the service of Ravi Soren was justified. The parties then filed their written statement before the Industrial Tribunal and in support of their pleas had examined the evidence and then the Tribunal heard the argument on merit. However, the Tribunal refused to decide the main issue on the ground that there is no industrial dispute in terms of the provision of 2(k) of the Act, The Writ Court as stated above, reversed the finding and remitted the case for expeditious adjudication. It is clear that the basic controversy was whether Smt. Surojmani Soren is the wife of late Gopi Soren and thus entitled to maintenance from respondent No. 2. This controversy took serious turn when the informal persuasion of the company did not succeed and resulted into termination of the service of respondent No. 2. In this context, the issue arose whether the termination of the service was justified and the Government being satisfied of the existence of such dispute referred the matter for adjudication.
(3.) The basic submission of the learned counsel for appellant is that the reference was made by the Government by treating the dispute as a collective dispute between the management under single workman presumably under Section 2(k) of the Act and the reference was never intended on the footing of an individual dispute between the management and a single employee under 2-A of the Act. The dispute could not be established as a collective dispute and consequently there was no existence of industrial dispute so as to warrant the reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was submitted that the reference was clearly bad in law and could not confer any jurisdiction on the Tribunal. It was also argued that the reference could not be saved by mere existence of industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the Act as the Government has not formed any opinion prior to reference in regard to existence of industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the Act. The defence argument is that the industrial dispute had come into existence in terms of Section 2-A of the Act and thereafter Government had merely to consider whether the issue of termination of service required the adjudication and not whether the dispute was a collective or an individual dispute. The question is whether the aforesaid reference could be saved even though the Government has not expressly considered the existence of industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the Act. The reference order as also the relevant provisions of the Act may now be mentioned. The reference order of the West Bengal Government under Section 10 of the Act is as follows:- "Government of West Bengal Labour Department ORDER No. 204-IR IR/IOL-37(1)/81 Dated January 18, 1984 Whereas an industrial dispute exists between Messrs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., Alloy Steels Plant, Durgapur-8 and their workmen represented by Hindustan Steel Employees Union, 36/49, Harshabardhan Road, pur-gapur-4 relating to the undermentioned issue being a letter specified in the Second Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947); And whereas it is expedient that the said dispute should be referred to an Industrial Tribunal constituted under Section 7-A of the said Act; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Governor is pleased hereby to refer the said dispute to the Ninth Industrial Tribunal constituted under Notification No. 4481/GL/G/3A-20/66 dated September 7, 1967, for adjudication: The said Ninth Industrial Tribunal shall meet at such places and on such dates as it may direct; Issues Whether termination of service of Shri Rabi Soren, Counter Asstt. Gr.III, Canteen ] Deptt., is justified? What relief, if any, is he entitled to? By order of the Governor, Sd/-S.K.Dhara Asstt. Secy, to the Govt. of West Bengal";