Back
2010 Supreme(Cal) 1493
High Court Of Calcutta
Aniruddha Bose, J.
Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Health Care Ltd : Appellant
Versus
Second Labour Court : Respondent
W.P. No. 13303 (W)/2006 with C.A.N. No. 1292/2008
Decided On : Dec 24,2010
D.K. Ghosh, P.S. Sengupta, Bhaskar Sinha, Ranjoy De, S.K.Choudhury
The Labour Court has the jurisdiction to implead a party to a proceeding as a proper party, but it cannot grant any relief against such party unless a dispute was raised against that party at the pre-adjudication stage.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - ADDITION OF PARTY - LABOUR COURT - JURISDICTION - SCOPE OF DISPUTE - PROPER PARTY - NECESSARY PARTY - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - SECTION 20D(2) WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES RULES, 1958 - SECTION 10(1B) INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - RATIO OF HOCHTIEF GAMMON V. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR (1964) APPLIED - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Glaxo Smithkline Beecham Consumer Health Care Ltd. (petitioner) challenged an order passed by the Second Labour Court, Kolkata, allowing an application filed by the workman (respondent no. 5) for impleading the petitioner as a party to a subsisting proceeding pending before it. The petitioner and Jagatjit Industries Ltd. (JIL) had an agreement for transfer of two brands of JIL to the petitioner. The respondent no. 5 was appointed by JIL as a sales promotion representative and continued in the same job after the ownership of these brands was transferred to the petitioner. JIL issued a notice to the respondent no. 5 informing him that he was relieved from service with effect from April 30, 2004, in accordance with Section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act). The respondent no. 5 challenged the legality of the action and sent a communication to the Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal alleging that the notice of termination of his service was illegal. A conciliation proceeding was started, and a certificate in terms of Rule 12A(3) of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 was issued by the Conciliation Officer about the pendency of the conciliation proceeding in accordance with the provisions of Section 10(1B) of the Act. Based on the certificate, the respondent no. 4 instituted a case before the Second Labour Court, West Bengal, which was registered as case no. 128 of 2004. The respondent no. 5 filed an application for addition of the petitioner as a party to the aforesaid case. The Labour Court allowed the application and added the petitioner as a party to the proceeding in terms of Rule 20D(2) and 24E of the Industrial Disputes Rules 1958.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to implead the petitioner as a proper party to the proceeding, but it could not grant any relief against the petitioner in favor of the respondent no. 5 since no dispute was raised against the petitioner at the pre-adjudication stage. The court found that the Labour Court's order was not based on proper reasoning, but it declined to interfere with the order as it did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to implead the petitioner as a party to the proceeding? 2. Whether the Labour Court could grant any relief against the petitioner in favor of the respondent no. 5? 3. Whether the Labour Court's order was based on proper reasoning?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Labour Court had the jurisdiction to implead the petitioner as a proper party to the proceeding under Rule 20D(2) of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. 2. The Labour Court could not grant any relief against the petitioner in favor of the respondent no. 5 since no dispute was raised against the petitioner at the pre-adjudication stage, as required under Section 10(1B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. The Labour Court's order was not based on proper reasoning, as it referred to the balance of convenience as a ground for impleading the petitioner, which was an inappropriate consideration.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the interim orders passed in the petition were dissolved.
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.
1. IN this writ petition, the petitioner, a limited company has challenged an order passed by the learned Judge, Second Labour Court, Kolkata, allowing an application filed by the workman, being the respondent no. 5 for impleading the writ petitioner as a party to a subsisting proceeding pending before him. The respondent no. 5 was appointed by Jagatjit, Industries Ltd. (JIL) being the respondent no. 4 1 as a sales promotion representative with effect from March 22, 1994 Subsequently, there was an arrangement between the writ petitioner and JIL for transfer of two brands of JIL to the writ, petitioner, being Viva and Maltova. By an' agreement executed on February 8,2000 which was termed as "Secondary selling amerchandizing agreement" an arrangement between the petitioner and JIL was entered into,. under which the latter agreed to render' professional services in secondary selling of products under these two brands. The case of the writ petitioner is that under the said agreement, employees of JIL were to remain, with JIL only, and they were not taking up any obligation under the agreement in respect of the employees of JIL.
2. THE respondent no. 5 had remained in the same job after the ownership of these brands stood transferred to the writ petitioner. It appears that there was no change in the distribution system of the products sold under these brands. During this period, the respondent no. 5 claims to have received salary and- travelling allowance from the funds of the petitioner. The arrangement between the writ petitioner and JIL seems to have had lapsed subsequently. Thereafter, a notice was issued by the respondent no. 4 by which the petitioner was informed that he stood relieved from the service of the company with effect from April 30,2004 in accordance with Section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (the Act) and it would be deemed that he had been retrenched. It was specified that he was entitled to compensation as laid down under Section 25-F of the Act. Along with the notice a demand draft for ? 73732/- (seventy three thousand seven hundred thirty two only) was sent to the petitioner which included his salary for the month of April 2004.
The respondent no. 4 questioned the legality of the said action and sent a communication to the Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal alleging that the notice of termination of his service was illegal. In this representation, the Labour Commissioner was requested to take steps for his immediate reinstatement and continuation of his service beyond April 30, 2004 either under JIL or under the writ petitioner. A conciliation proceeding had been started and the conciliation officer took steps for conciliation with JIL, but no settlement could be arrived at. A certificate in terms of Rule 12A(3) of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 (the said Rules) was issued by the Conciliation Officer about the pendency of the conciliation proceeding in accordance with the provisions of Section 10( 1B) of the Act. In this certificate it was specifically stated: "Whereas an industrial dispute relating to Alleged illegal termination of service of Suvendu Chaudhury by Jagjit Industries Ltd. 'Shantiniketan, 8, Camac St. 9th Floor, F1. Space No. 9, KoI-17 was raised by Shir Suvendu Chaudhury, Flat No. 208, May Fair Plaza, Netaji Subhas Avenue, Serampore, Dist. Hooghly, Pin. 712201 vide respondent dated May 17,2004."
3. ON the strength of such certificate, the respondent no. 4 instituted a case before the learned Second Labour Court, West Bengal, which was registered as case no. 128 of 2004, upon submission of the statement of facts. From the copies of records of the proceeding annexed to the writ petition, marked as "P9", it appears that the matter was posted for hearing on several days before the Labour Court, and JIL and the respondent no. 4 were duly represented before the Court. An application was filed sometime in the month of December 2005 by
