ARINDAM SINHA, J. - (1.) Petitioner has challenged Order dated 17th November, 2017 whereby two issues have been referred by appropriate Government to Industrial Tribunal for being tried. The issues are: "1. Whether the refusal of employment of the 26 workmen, whose names are given in Annexure-1, by the management of M/S. Blossom Restaurant with effect from 24.09.2016 is justified? 2. What relief, if any, are they entitled to?"
(2.) Mr. Majumder, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner who is employer. He submits, the issues are misconceived. His client will be deeply prejudiced if trial is allowed to commence and proceed on these issues which have no relation to facts, assuming though admitting that there is an industrial dispute.
(3.) He refers to strike notice dated 7th September, 2016 given by the Union. The Union threatened they will be forced to resort to indefinite strike due to failure on part of petitioner by any date beyond 15 days from date of the notice. He then refers to letter dated 20th October, 2016 written by the Union to Labour Commissioner wherein there is assertion that employees are on strike since 24th September, 2016 and same is continuing till date. He submits, in these facts there cannot be issue of refusal of employment when the Union caused an indefinite strike. Relying on sub-section (4) in section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 he submits, the Tribunal will confine its adjudication to the issues referred and matters incidental thereto. Issue if at all could be whether there was strike. Refusal of employment cannot be incidental to strike, is his submission.;