The main legal point established in the judgment is the administrative nature of the Government's action under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the non-altering effect of the corrigendum on the nature of the dispute, and the duty of the tribunal to ensure fair conditions of service prevail in the industry.

JUDGMENT

T.S.Sivagnanam, J. - This intra Court appeal filed by M/s. Alembic Limited (hereinafter referred to as the management) is directed against the order dated 26.06.2019 in WP No. 597 (W) of 2019. The said writ petition was filed assailing the correctness of Order No. 158 dated 31.05.2018 passed by the Third Industrial Tribunal. The facts leading to the order impugned in the writ petition can be culled out as here under:

2. The Fourth Respondent herein, Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Association of India (FMRAI) having its registered office at Mumbai and operational office at Kolkata filed a petition dated 08.06.2006 before the Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal alleging unilateral action of the management in alteration of service conditions of sales promotion employees in violation of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (the Act for brevity). It was stated that the management transferred the services of all sales promotion employees all over the country from various subsidiary companies to the management company as the principal employee, with effect from 11.06.2004. Consequent to this transfer, the management unilaterally curtailed the existing service conditions of sales promotion employees that was enjoyed by them prior to the transfer that too without any advance intimation to the workmen as required under law. The areas in which the service conditions were altered were stated to be (a) reduction of retirement age from 60 years to 58 years; (b) downward revision of variable dearness allowance; (c) denial of leave facilities. The federation stated that as a mark of protest, the sales promotion employees accepted the appointment letters from the management without prejudice to their rights and contentions while affixing their signatures in the appointment letters. Further it was stated that a demand letter was sent to the management for restoration of existing benefits for which there was no response. It was alleged that the management did not issue any notice under Section 9A of the Act before altering the service conditions particularly with regard to the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years and proceeded to implement the illegally altered service conditions. The intervention of the Labour Commissioner was sought for by initiating conciliation proceedings for amicable solution. The conciliation proceedings ended in failure. Consequently, the matter was placed before the Government. By order dated 24.01.2007, the Government was satisfied that an industrial dispute exists between the management and their workmen represented by the federation and it is expedient that the said dispute should be referred to an industrial tribunal constituted under Section 74 of the Act. Therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 10 of the Act, the Government referred the dispute to the third industrial tribunal for adjudication. The issues which were referred for adjudication are (i) whether the change of service conditions of sales promotion employees by the management who joined their companies from M/s. Purak Vinimay Limited is justified? (ii) what relief if any, are they entitled to? The federation filed their claim statement before the industrial tribunal and the management their written statement. Oral and documentary evidences were placed and proved before the industrial tribunal by both parties.

3. The management raised a preliminary point as to the maintainability of the reference as to whether the West Bengal Government is the appropriate Government to refer the dispute in question. The tribunal took up the preliminary point for consideration and by order dated 31.05.2018 held that the Government of West Bengal is the appropriate Government and it is fully competent to make the reference and accordingly decided the issue against the management. The said order was put to challenge by the management in the writ petition. The learned Single Bench upon considering the rival s