Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioners have assailed an order of reference made by the authority and the award dated July 28, 2014 passed thereon under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the present writ petition.
(2.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the order of reference suffers from non application of mind. According to him, the reference is bad. Referring to the order of reference dated March 27, 2008, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the order of reference discloses that, the appropriate Government did not form the opinion correctly. The issues framed in the order of reference do not take into consideration the factual situation obtaining for the so called disputes. The issues as framed, evidences non application of mind. Persons who were allegedly locked out, have been said to be terminated from service, in the issues as framed by the order of reference. The order of reference suffers from the vice of non application of mind. The assumption of jurisdiction by the appropriate Government under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is incorrect. He has submitted that, same persons have been named in Annexure C to the order of reference which deals with persons who have been allegedly locked out as also Annexure D thereto. Annexure D of the order of reference deals with persons who have been allegedly terminated from services. Same persons cannot suffer both the order of lock out as well as the order of termination at the same time. This fact shows that the appropriate Government purporting to exercise powers under Section of the Act of 1947 is guilty of non application of mind. In support of such contentions, he has relied upon (Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department & Anr., 2015 15 SCC 1), (ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. (Now know as Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd.) v. Union of India & Ors., 2005 12 SCC 738), (Aaj Kaal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 1992 1 CalLT 446 HC).
(3.) Referring to the impugned award dated July 28, 2014, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that, the award is perverse. It is without jurisdiction. The order of reference being bad, the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction over the subject matter. The impugned award deals with matters which were not referred. The impugned award travels beyond the order of reference assuming that, the order of reference is good in law. Moreover, the impugned award purports to award reliefs which cannot be worked out. The impugned award proceeds to grant relief to the self-same set of persons who have been granted relief for a lock out as well as a termination. He has referred to the detailed reply that the petitioners had submitted before the Industrial Tribunal. He has submitted that, such reply has not been considered and understood in the correct perspective by the Industrial Tribunal. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon (Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Workmen & Ors., 1967 AIR(SC) 469).;