Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition dated March 31, 2003 is aggrieved by the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata dated January 9, 2003, Annexure P 9 at pp. 122 -170.
(2.) BY an order dated December 27, 1980, Annexure P3 at p.30, the Central Government referred an existing industrial dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen. The reference was made in exercise of power conferred by section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute specified in the schedule to the order was as follows: - Whether the action of the Joint Manager (Port Operation), Food Corporation of India, Calcutta in dismissing Shri Niranjan Das Gupta and forty -nine other workmen from service as per office order dated 28.3.1974 is legal, proper and justified ? If not to what relief are the workmen entitled? On receipt of notice from the Tribunal the parties filed their respective written statements. In its written statement, Annexure P5 at pp.46 -60, the corporation has stated as follows. "The Corpn. craves leave to refer to and rely upon material documents to establish the bona fide of the action taken by the Corporation as well as to unfold the frivolity of the baseless allegations made by Union. The Corporation craves leave to adduce evidence to establish the charges against the concerned employees." (para. 13). "The case of concerned workman is not that of retrenchment but dismissal consequent upon commission of gross misconduct of getting appointment in a collusive manner without having requisite competence." (para. 19). "The concerned cases are not of retrenchment but dismissal effected after thorough investigation into the matter and hence the allegations regarding irregularity or motive do not arise." (para.20). "The provisions of section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, have not applicability inasmuch as no retrenchment of the 50 workmen was effected and the contention on this score is misconceived. There was no perverse motive behind the dismissal from service." (para.21). "It is a case of dismissal for the misconduct or securing employment (a) dishonestly (b) in a collusive way being fully conscious of (c) inefficiency and incompetency." (para.21). "The Corporation, therefore, submits that the learned Tribunal be pleased to hold in answer to the issue under Reference that the Reference is not maintainable and in any event, the dismissals of the workmen in the facts and circumstances of the case are justified." (para.28).
(3.) BEFORE the Tribunal the Corporation raised the following four preliminary points: - (i) This second reference is bad in law because the Food Corporation of India was not given any opportunity to be, heard before making the order of reference; (ii) The Association in question which is espousing the cause of the concerned 50 workmen has no locus standi and no representative character and hence it should be held that no industrial dispute exists; (iii) No dispute having been raised by the Association with the management, the reference should be held to be illegal; and (iv) The present reference being a delayed reference having been made in 1981 in respect of the dispute of concerned workman in 1974 should be held to be invalid.;