The court clarified that the absence of specific issues does not invalidate a judgment when both parties understand the case and present evidence accordingly. Additionally, the court clarified that the Specific Relief Act's provisions on enforcing master-servant relationships do not apply to industrial adjudication.

1. This petition is directed against an Award passed by the learned Judge of the 2nd Labour Court, Kolkata on March 24, 2011, in case no. 51 of 2003 under Section 10 (1B)(D) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (the Act, for short). By the said Award, the application of the respondent no. 6 in this writ petition was allowed, her dismissal by the writ petitioner was found to be unlawful and illegal and the company has been directed to reinstate the applicant before the Labour Court to service with full back wages and other consequential benefits admissible as per the company norms, within 60 days from the date of passing of the Award failing which the applicant was given liberty to take recourse to law.

2. The respondent no. 6 herein who was the applicant before the Tribunal obtained a pendency certificate from the Conciliation Officer and moved the Tribunal by filing a written statement under Section 10 (1B)(D) of the Act. The case of the applicant before the Tribunal was that she joined as a clerk in the petitioner company herein on September 19, 1998 at a monthly salary of Rs. 200/-. Subsequently, her salary was enhanced to Rs. 500/- per month. But the petitioner company without any reason reduced the same to Rs. 1800/- per month from the month of November, 1999.

3. The further case of the respondent no. 6 herein is that in November 2001, she was dismissed from service. She lodged a complaint with the Assistant Labour Commissioner where the stand of the writ petitioner company was that she was not an employee of the company at any time. She further alleged that the company had terminated her from service without complying with Section 25F of the Act which amounts to unlawful dismissal and unfair labour practice.

4. The writ petitioner company entered appearance and filed a written statement denying all the material allegations. According to the company, the applicant before the Tribunal was engaged for a period on a temporary basis and remuneration depending on the volume of work and number of days as and when the requirement for her engagement arose. For the purpose of preparation of vouchers in cases of emergency, the management of the company had given her blank vouchers duly signed by the management. According to the company, it was agreed that if the applicant was required to render service for more than eight hours for a total period of 30 days in a month, she will get Rs. 2000/- per month as her remuneration and if her service was required for less than 30 days, she will get Rs. 1800/- per month. The applicant took advantage of the signed vouchers in her custody and filled them up in her own handwriting. She further forged the signature on some vouchers to prove her contention.

5. Upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed three issues. Evidence on both sides was adduced. Subsequently it passed the Award as mentioned before.

6. The writ petitioners have assailed the Award on the ground that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the respondent no. 6 cannot be and should not be treated as an employee of the petitioner no. 1 as there was no letter of appointment. All vouchers were kept in blank form signed by the management of the company and the respondent no. 6 after she had been asked not to attend the office manufactured the vouchers putting the amount and the word salary on them which were all in her custody. The petitioner further alleged that the stand of the company was placed before the Tribunal but it had failed to appreciate the statement and objection of the petitioner and passed an Award totally ignoring the defence taken by it. According to them, one of the shortcomings of the Award was the failure on the part of the Labour Court to appreciate that in the absence of any appointment letter one cannot claim himself or herself as a permanent employee of any establishment. The respondent no. 6 was never issued any letter of appointment as she was engaged on temporary basis depending on the volume of the work. At