Back
2004 Supreme(Cal) 781
High Court Of Calcutta
Asok Kumar Ganguly And Alok Kumar Basu, JJ.
WEBEL VIDEO DEVICES LTD - Appellant
Versus
PRASANTA KUMAR DAS - Respondent
M. A. T. 2210 Of 1998
Decided On : 12/21/2004
A.C.CHAKRABORTY, AMIT CHAUDHARY, BIJOY KUMAR DAS, KUSHAL PAL
Where an industrial dispute exists, the proper remedy for aggrieved workmen is to raise an industrial dispute by following the procedures under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Writ Court should not interfere when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available or where there is an established procedure to enforce a right.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - JURISDICTION - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 2(K), 2A - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - ARTICLE 12, 226 - WORKMEN DISMISSAL - ENQUIRY - VIOLATION OF MODEL STANDING ORDERS - WRIT COURT JURISDICTION - HELD, WRIT PETITION NOT MAINTAINABLE - DISPUTE IS AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - PROPER REMEDY IS TO RAISE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE BY FOLLOWING PROCEDURES UNDER THE SAID ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Writ petition filed by workmen challenging dismissal orders passed against them alleging violation of Model Standing Orders by the company. Enquiry Officer appointed, conducted enquiry and passed dismissal orders. Writ petition filed alleging company is a "state" under Article 12 of the Constitution and that the appointment of the Enquiry Officer was perverse and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were arrived at in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
Writ petition not maintainable. Dispute is an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Proper remedy for the workmen is to raise an industrial dispute by following the procedures under the said Act. Writ Court should not interfere when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available or where there is an established procedure to enforce a right.
Issues: Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the dispute is an industrial dispute and a complete remedy to the aggrieved workmen to ventilate their grievances has been provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. If the dispute is not an industrial dispute, nor does it relate to enforcement of any other right under the Act, the remedy lies only in the Civil Court. 2. If the dispute is an industrial dispute arising out of a right or liability under the general or common law and not under the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is alternative, leaving it to the election of the suitor concerned to choose his remedy for the relief which is competent to be granted in a particular remedy. 3. If the industrial dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created under the Act, then the only remedy available to the suitor is to get an adjudication under the Act. 4. If the right which is sought to be enforced is a right created under the act such as Chapter VA then the remedy for its enforcement is either section 33c or the raising of an industrial dispute, as the case may be.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed. Judgement of the learned Judge of the Writ Court set aside. No order as to costs.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against a judgement and order dated 15. 06. 1998 passed by a learned Judge of the Writ Court. By the said judgement and order, the learned Judge of the Writ Court was, inter alia, pleased to quash the order of dismissal dated 13. 11. 1988 passed against the respondents/writ petitioners and allowed the writ petition.
( 2 ) FACTS relating to filing of the writ petition are noted as follows: while the respondents/writ petitioners were working as employees of Webel video Devices Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'said company'), they were served with a chargesheet dated 09. 04. 1986 in which it was alleged that the writ petitioners were guilty of riotous and disorderly behaviour during the working hours at the establishment and such acts on the part of the writ petitioners are subversive of discipline. The relevant portion of the said chargesheet against the writ petitioner No. 1 is as follows :
"it has been reported against you as under: at around 2 p. m. on 24. 3. 1986, when Mr. S. N. Das, Jr. Engineer of the company, was being assaulted by Sri Anup Mazumdar, Staff No. (223), near the Diesel Generator Room, adjacent to the A/c Plant Room, you, along with Sri Sandip Ganguly (267), joined Sri Mazumdar and both of you started beating Mr. Das with lathirod etc. Subsequently, Sri Pradip Das, Staff No. (258), also joined you in assaulting Mr. Das. You might have continued assaulting Mr. Das if some other officers did not intervene and rescue him. As a result of your assault, Mr. Das sustained injuries for which he had to be rushed to the hospital, after a check-up by the company's Medical Officer. From the comments hurled and remarks passed by a few of your co-workmen it appeared that the attack by you along with others on Mr. S. N. Das was preplanned and deliberate. The above acts on your part would, if proved, amount to 'riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours at the establishment or any act subversive of discipline', which are gross misconducts under clause 27 (VIII) of the Model standing Orders prescribed by the Government of West Bengal and applicable to this factory and merit strict disciplinary action. You are, therefore, hereby required to explain in writing for the circumstances alleged against you as above which should reach the undersigned within 72 hours from your receipt of this chargesheet. In the event of non-receipt of your written explanation, as directed above, it will be assumed that you have no explanation to offer and the matter against you will be proceeded with accordingly without further reference to you. "
( 3 ) THE relevant portion of the said chargesheet against the writ petitioner no. 2 is as follows:
"it has been reported against you as under: at around 2 p. m. on 24. 3. 86 when Mr. S. N. Das, Jr. Engineer of the company, was being assaulted by Sri Anup Mazumdar, Staff No. (223) near the Diesel generator Room, adjacent to the A/c Plant Room, you, along with Sri prasanta Das (265), joined Sri Mazumdar and both of you started beating mr. Das with lathi rod. Subsequently, Sr. Pradip Das, Staff No. (258), also joined you in assaulting Mr. Das. You might have continued assaulting Mr. Das if some other officers did not intervene and rescue him. As a result of your assault, Mr. Das sustained injuries for which he had to be rushed to the hospital, after a check-up by the company's Medical Officer. From the comments hurled and remarks passed by a few of your co-workmen it appeared that the attack by you along with others on Mr. S. N. Das was preplanned and deliberate. The above acts on your part would, if proved, amount to 'riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours at the establishment or any act subversive of discipline', which are gross misconducts under Clause 27 (VIII) of the Model standing Orders prescribed by the Government of West Bengal and applicable to this factory and merit st
