Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Dipak Prakas Kundu, J.
B.G. Sampat (Babulal Gordhandas Sampat) – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
W.P. No. 116 of 1996
Decided on: 18th December, 1998
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - Termination of Service - Appropriate Government - Interim Relief - Interpretation of Section 15(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a workman employed by Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., was transferred from Calcutta to Bombay but did not comply with the transfer order. He was subsequently served with a show-cause notice and an enquiry was held. The workman was found guilty of misconduct and his services were terminated by way of discharge. The workman raised a dispute with the employer and the Government of West Bengal referred the dispute to the Third Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.
Finding of the Court:
1. The appropriate Government for the purpose of referring the industrial dispute to the tribunal was the Government of West Bengal, as the termination order was served upon the workman in Calcutta and the workman suffered the penal consequences there. 2. The tribunal erred in holding that the reference was prima facie not sustainable. 3. The workman was entitled to interim relief under Section 15(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the provision does not require the workman to be unemployed or unable to maintain himself as a condition precedent for grant of interim relief.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government of West Bengal was the appropriate Government to refer the industrial dispute to the tribunal. 2. Whether the reference was prima facie not sustainable. 3. Whether the workman was entitled to interim relief under Section 15(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appropriate Government for the purpose of referring an industrial dispute to the tribunal is the Government of the State where the termination order was served upon the workman and where the workman suffered the penal consequences. 2. The reference was sustainable as the industrial dispute arose in Calcutta and the workman raised the dispute there. 3. The workman was entitled to interim relief under Section 15(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the provision does not require the workman to be unemployed or unable to maintain himself as a condition precedent for grant of interim relief.
Final Decision: The court set aside the tribunal's findings that the reference was prima facie not sustainable and that the workman was not entitled to interim relief. The court held that the Government of West Bengal was the appropriate Government to refer the industrial dispute to the tribunal and that the workman was entitled to interim relief under Section 15(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
In this writ proceeding order No. 33 dated August 18, 1995 passed by the Third Industrial Tribunal in reference case No. VIII 27/92 in connection with an application made by the writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the workman) under section 15(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is under challenge.
2. By the order under challenge the tribunal dismissed the application of the workman under Section 15(2)(b) of the Act on two grounds. The first ground is that the reference made by Government of West Bengal prima facie appears to be not sustainable and the second ground is that as a matter of right the workman cannot get order of interim relief and in the facts and circumstances of the case the workman was not entitled to get any such order for interim relief.
3. The workman was employed in M/s. Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. The employer is having its regional office at 10, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta-13. The petitioner was transferred to Calcutta but he was under the control of Bombay Office. By an order dated 1st August, 1988, the workman was transferred to Bombay Office with effect from 5th August, 1988. However, the workman did not carry out the said order of transfer. By a letter dated 22nd November, 1988 the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from company's service. The show cause notice is quoted herein-below:-
"Mr. B.G. Sampat,
S/O Goutam Das Dwaraka Das Sampat,
7/1/A, Mansatala Lane,
Calcutta-700 023
It has come to our notice that the 11th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in Case No. TR/668/TR/364 of 1988 has found you & other 14 persons guilty of ambling in a public street viz. in front of the premises No. 16, India Exchange Place at about 13.30 hrs. on 4.8.88 when the police seized from you & others, cash Rs.2,96,385/- dot pen, papers & other articles & arrested you & others on the said date & time.
As you & all others pleaded guilty of the charge all of you were convicted by the said Magistrate & sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.150/- each & in default to simple imprisonment of 30 days each. By the said order dated 5.8.88 the Magistrate ordered the seizure of money & Anamat to be confiscated to the State.
A true photo copy of the said order dated 5.8.88 of the Magistrate is attached for your perusal.
Your indulgence in gambling in a public street for which you have been convicted based on your own evidence has rendered you unworthy of being continued in employment as your said conduct adversely affects the reputation of our company.
You are hereby called upon to show cause within three days as to why you should not be dismissed from company's service. Your explanation should be submitted to the undersigned within three days from the date of receipt of this show cause notice.
For INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS (B) PVT. LTD.
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
CC : Editor-F.E. – Bombay
CC : News Editor - F.E. – Bombay
CC : Regl. Mgr. - Calcutta.
4. By a letter dated 6th November, 1989 the workman was informed that the employer proposed to hold an enquiry at Bombay on 15.11.89 at 230 p.m. for failure of the workman to report for duty at the employers Bombay Office pursuant to the transfer order dated 1.8.88 and conviction of the workman owing to his negligence in gambling in public street. The relevant portion of the letter is quoted herein-below:-
"Mr. B.G. Sampat.
7/1A. Mansatala Lane.
Ground Floor,
Kidderpore,
Calcutta-700 023
Dear Sir,
Your letter dated 5th October, 1989 addressed to our Managing Director has been received by us.
Earlier we had also received your written reply dated 29.11.88 to the Show Cause Notice dated 22.11.88 issued to you.
It is proposed to hold an enquiry at Bombay on Wednesday, 15.11.1989 at 2.30 p.m. for your failure to report for duty at our Bombay Office pursuant to the Transfer order dated 1.8.88 issued to you and your conviction owing to your negligence in gambling in a public street in front of the premises No. 16, India Excha
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
