Back
1989 Supreme(Cal) 429
High Court Of Calcutta
Kalyanmoy Ganguli
MANABENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHURY - Appellant
Versus
FIRST LABOUR COURT AND ORS. - Respondent
CO 7236 (W) Of 1988
Decided On : 08/25/1989
BIKASH RANJAN BHATTACHARJI, S.R.GHOSH, SUNIT KRISHNA DUTTA
An industrial tribunal or labour court cannot adjudicate upon matters beyond the scope and ambit of the issues referred to it for adjudication, even for collateral purposes.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - RESIGNATION - SECTION 2 (K) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - WHETHER THE LABOUR COURT CAN ADJUDICATE UPON THE FACTUM OF RESIGNATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF BENEFITS ARISING OUT OF THE DECISION ON THE MAIN PORTION OF THE ISSUE REFERRED TO IT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, employed as a typist, was terminated from service on July 20, 1979. An industrial dispute arose, and the matter was referred to the Labour Court under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The issue referred was whether the termination of service was justified. During the proceedings, the company submitted a petition seeking a 'no dispute' award based on the petitioner's resignation letter dated May 5, 1982. The Labour Court allowed fresh evidence on the resignation and concluded that the termination was illegal but accepted the resignation, limiting back wages to the date of resignation.
Finding of the Court:
The Labour Court erred in adjudicating upon the factum of resignation, which was not part of the issue referred to it. The resignation occurred after the order of reference and could not be considered as a consequential relief. The Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by traveling beyond the scope of the reference.
Issues: 1. Whether the Labour Court can adjudicate upon the factum of resignation for the purpose of computation of benefits arising out of the decision on the main portion of the issue referred to it. 2. Whether the Labour Court can travel beyond the ambit and scope of the issues referred to it for adjudication, even for any collateral purpose.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Resignation implies a cessation of the employer-employee relationship and is connected with non-employment, making it an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. An industrial tribunal or labour court cannot travel beyond the ambit and scope of the issues referred to it for adjudication, even for any collateral purpose. 3. The Labour Court erred in considering the alleged resignation, which occurred after the order of reference, as part of the consequential relief. The resignation was not part of the industrial dispute referred to the Labour Court and could not be adjudicated upon.
Final Decision: The award of the Labour Court relating to the consequential relief is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Labour Court to quantify the relief to which the petitioner is entitled, excluding the factum of resignation, on the basis of the finding that the termination of service was illegal.
( 1 ) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, an award of the 1st Labour Court, West Bengal, passed on March 25, 1988 which was published in the Gazette of April 20, 1988 is under challenge. The matter was very hotly contested by both the State and the company.
( 2 ) THE short facts leading to the case are as follows: the petitioner at the relevant time was employed as a typist under the Respondent No. 3 company. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the Respondent No. 3 company wrongfully and illegally terminated the service of the petitioner on or about July 20, 1979. This termination of service of the petitioner gave rise to an industrial dispute and a reference was made to the 1st Labour Court under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the said Act.
( 3 ) THE issue which was referred to the 1st Labour Court is "is the termination of service of Manabendra Kumar Choudhury justified? If not what relief, if any, is he entitled?" The order of reference dated February 14, 1980 has been annexed to the petition marked with the letter 'a'.
( 4 ) IT is alleged in paragraph 6 of the petition that evidence was closed on or about February 11, 1982 and March 24, 1982 was fixed for arguments. Subsequently, however, after a few adjournments, June 8, 1982 was fixed for argument.
( 5 ) ON that date, namely, June 8, 1982 a petition was filed on behalf of the company praying for passing a 'no dispute' award on the ground that the respondent company has received a letter dated May 5, 1982 signed by the petitioner workman tendering his resignation from the services of the company and expressing his desire to withdraw the case. A copy of the said petition of the respondent company dated June 8, 1982 has been annexed to the petition marked with the letter 'd'.
( 6 ) ALTHOUGH the evidence regarding the issue referred to the 1st Labour Court was concluded by February 11, 1982, yet the Labour Court permitted the parties to adduce fresh evidence on the basis of the alleged letter of resignation dated May 5, 1982, a copy of which has been annexed marked with the letter 'd" to the writ petition.
( 7 ) THE 1st Labour Court decided that the termination of the services of the petitioner was illegal and wrongful but in the concluding portion of the award the Labour Court was pleased to hold that "from the Ext. 1 it can be understood that the letter dated May 5, 1982 of the concerned workman tendering resignation has been accepted by the management with effect from the date as desired by the concerned workman. As the workman submitted resignation letter which has been accepted by the management, the workman cannot get reinstatement but the workman is entitled to get full back wages upto the date of his resignation letter i. e. May 5, 1982. The company is directed to pay full back wages to the concerned workman upto May 5, 1982 within one month from the dale of publication of this award. "
( 8 ) IT is part of the award which has been challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner contends that only one issue was referred to the 1st Labour Court namely, whether the termination of the services of the petitioner was justified or not. No other issue was referred to the 1st Labour Court. The story of resignation was not part of the issue referred to the 1st Labour Court for adjudication. Mr. Sunil Krishna Dutta, appearing for the respondent No. 3 company, sought to establish that as the 2nd part of the order of reference deals with quantum of the relief to which the petitioner workman would be entitled in case the order of termination was found to be unjustified. The 1st Labour Court rightly observed that in computing the quantum of the benefit to be derived therfrom the date of resignation becomes very material as a workman cannot claim any renumeration in the shape of back wages after he voluntarily submitted his resignation. Mr. Dutta further argued, and with
