- (1.) ANIRUDDHA Bose, J.-In the present writ petition, under challenge in substance is the legality of a proceeding initiated under the provisions of section 10 (1b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended in West bengal ). I shall describe this statute in the later part of this Judgment as The Act". The petitioners, who are a company and a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003 have approached this Court mainly for quashing of a certificate issued in Form-S as per Rule 12a (3) of the West Bengal industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, and a notice issued by the learned judge, Second Labour Court, requiring the appearance of the petitioners before the Court for framing of issues. I shall henceforth refer to these rules as the said Rules. The certificate in form S stipulates pendency of a conciliation proceeding for more than sixty days. The notiee of the labour Court requires appearance of the petitioners for hearing regarding framing of issues in connection with a dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No. 4. These two documents have been made annexures "p8" and "p10" of the writ petition.
(2.) THE controversy out of which the present writ petition arises, relates to the allegation of illegal termination of service of the respondent no. 4 by the petitioners. It was at his instance the Assistant Labour commissioner, being the Conciliation Officer (respondent No. 2) had issued the impugned certificate ("pendency Certificate" in short) in exercise of his power under section 10 (1b) (b) of the Act. The notice directing appearance of the petitioners before the Labour Court for hearing regarding framing of issues was issued by the learned Judge, second Labour Court under the provisions of section 10 (lb) (d) of the Act.
(3.) THE original status of the respondent No. 4 as a workman of the petitioners is not in dispute in the present proceeding. The case of the petitioners is that he had retired from his service on 31st December, 2005 upon having attained the age of superannuation, being 60 years. The case of the respondent No. 4 on the other hand is that his date of birth is 1st February, 1949 and hence he would attain the age of superannuation only in the month of February 1949. His allegation is that he is being illegally compelled to retire before attaining the age of superannuation.;