Mukul Gopal Mukherjee, J. - (1.) The petitioner Brooke Bond India, Ltd., impugns in the present writ application orders, dated 13 March 1987 and 18 August 1987, as passed by the learned Judge, Fifth Industrial Tribunal. By order, dated 13 March 1987, the Tribunal, on an application for interim relief filed by the workman on 23 December 1986, directed the management of the company to make payment of fifty per cent of the salary of rupees two thousand per month in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Subsistence Allowance Act, 1969, with effect from the date of filing of the application for interim relief till the disposal of the proceedings before the Tribunal. The workman concerned was directed to give a written undertaking supported by an affidavit stating therein that the amount to be received by him on account of interim relief would be repaid to the company if the case is ultimately decided against him, within seven days from the date of the judgment and award. The company filed an application to review the said order and by an order, dated 18 August 1987, the Tribunal held that the petition for review filed by the company was not maintainable in law and accordingly it stood rejected. It is the contention of the petitioner-company that several creditors of the workman-respondent 2 obtained decrees from the Court of Small Causes at Sealdah and other places and obtained orders of attachment in respect of the salary payable to the said workman-respondent 2 and in view of the said orders of attachment passed against the workman concerned, there is no livelihood of the workman reimbursing money despite the undertaking given by him. The hearing of the proceeding before the Tribunal was not taken up on some pretext or other and the matter was indefinitely delayed so that the company had to incur a recurring liability to go on paying fifty per cent of the salary last drawn by the workman as interim relief.
(2.) Sri Das, the senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-company drew my attention to the Industrial Disputes (West Bengal Second Amendment) Act, 1980, whereby S. 15 of the Industrial Disputes Act did undergo an amendment. He drew my attention to S. 15(2)(b)of the said amended Act which stipulates that where an industrial dispute has been referred either to a Labour Court or to a Tribunal it shall upon hearing the parties to the dispute, determine, within a period of sixty days, from the date of reference under Sub-sec. (1) of S. 10 or within such shorter period as may be specified in the order of reference, the quantum of interim relief admissible, if any, provided that the quantum of interim relief relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of service of the workman shall be equivalent to subsistence allowance as may be admissible under the West Bengal Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1969. Sri Das also drew my attention to the subsequent amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as a whole brought in by the Central Legislature where S. 15 of the Principal Act for the words "as soon as it is practicable on the conclusion thereof" the words, " within the period specified in the order referring such industrial dispute or the further period extended under the second proviso to Sub-sec. (2A) of S. 10," shall be substituted. Sri Das contended that in view of the amendment incorporated in the Central Act by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982, there was an implied repeal to the West Bengal Amendment Act which incorporated the provisions as to interim relief inasmuch as the main object for which the Central Legislature brought in the amendment postulated the expeditious hearing of a pending proceeding before the Labour Court or the Tribunal as the case may be and if the entire proceeding is over within a stipulated time, there would be no necessity whatsoever of the Legislature still making a provision for relief to the indigent workman by way of an interim relief being admissible to him. I do not think that there is any substance in the contention raised by Sri Das. The West Bengal Amendment did not stand amply repealed by virtue of the subsequent amendment engrafted in the Central Statute which provides for expeditious tearing of a pending proceeding before the Tribunal or the Labour Court. The intention of the Legislature is never to denude a workman of an enabling provision which was so 'secured by the State Legislature by way of social justice.
(3.) As regards the orders impugned, they are, dated 13 March 1987 and 18 August 1987. The petitioner has come after the expiry of an inordinately long time and even if the contention of the petitioner could have been entertained only for an academic discussion, it does not call for any interim order by way of an equitable relief to the petitioner.;