- (1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgement dated May 18, 2017 passed in the writ application. By virtue of the impugned judgement, the learned single judge set aside the award impugned to the writ application as also directed the appellant Company to recalculate the amount payable by it to each of the respondents or their predecessors-in-interest, as the case may be, after adjusting the amount which had been paid to them at the time of taking voluntary retirement.
(2.) The above writ application was filed by the respondents challenging an award dated July 10,2012 passed by the learned single Judge, Ninth Industrial Tribunal, Durgapur rejecting the proceeding under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A proceeding arose out of a reference to the Industrial Tribunal made by an order dated March 17, 2006 to adjudicate the following issues : 1) Whether the claim of the 152 workmen (as per list enclosed) that their apprenticeship period in the Company should be taken into account for calculation of their retirement benefits by the management for the total service period is justified? 2) What relief, if any, are the workmen entitled to?
(3.) It is submitted by Mr. Sudarananda Pal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant Company that the learned single Judge traversed beyond its jurisdiction in passing the impugned judgement in view of the provisions of subsection 4 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is his further submissions that the terms of reference was to decide whether the claim of the respondents that their apprenticeship period in appellant Company should be taken in to account for calculation of their retirement benefits. Instead the learned single Judge ventured in to the issue of finding out as to whether the apprenticeship period of the respondents in the appellant Company was to be treated in service as regular employee in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 read with the provisions of sub-section (s) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to Mr. Pal, the learned Tribunal being a creature of reference could not adjudicate the matter not within the purview of disputes actually referred to it by the order of reference. Therefore, according to him, there was a jurisdictional error on the part of the learned single Judge to pass the impugned judgement.;