The central legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of an employee's duties, the absence of a well-defined training program, and the lack of performance appraisal are crucial factors in determining the status of a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. This appeal is to challenge a judgment of the Hon’ble Single Bench dated 06.05.2016, delivered in W.P. No. 8837 (w) of 2001.

2. The issue in question before the Hon’ble Single Judge was with regard to the legality, validity and propriety of an ‘award’ of the First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, dated 04.04.2001. By dint of the same the First Industrial Tribunal has set aside an order dated 13.01.1993, of the present appellant, that being illegal, whimsical and arbitrary. The Tribunal in the said ‘award’ dated 04.04.2001, had further directed that the present respondent, i.e, Sri Ashok Nandi should be reinstated and absorbed in the post of ‘Junior Clerk’ under library department, with all back wages and consequential benefits, with effect from 10.01.1998, till the date of his actual reinstatement in service. Tribunal further has directed that ‘award’ to be implemented within three months.

3. The present appellant, being aggrieved with the said ‘award’ of the Tribunal dated 04.04.2001, had preferred the writ petition as mentioned above. The final verdict of the writ Court has also not been in favour of the appellant. The Hon’ble Single Judge in its judgment dated 06.05.2016, as impugned in this appeal, has held inter alia that, neither the direction of the Tribunal for reinstatement of the present respondent can be termed as beyond jurisdiction of the Tribunal or having been passed in exercise of the jurisdiction not vested in it, nor the termination of the present respondent can be termed to have been done by the appellant, remaining within the limits of statutory provisions, he being virtually a ‘workman’ of the present appellant. The Hon’ble Single Judge has further held, that, on the basis of the facts of the case and by dint of the legal fiction, the present respondent would be considered as a ‘workman’ of the appellant, in terms of the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, abrupt termination of the respondent without following the procedure as prescribed under law, as well as the principles of natural justice, would render such an action of the present appellant as null and void. The Hon’ble Single Bench has finally concluded that the ‘award’ of the Tribunal dated 04.04.2001 should be upheld and that there would not be any merit in the writ petition before it. As such the writ Court has dismissed appellant’s writ petition, by dint of the impugned judgment dated 06.05.2016.

4. While assailing the said impugned judgment before this Court the appellant has put forward its grounds of challenge inter alia that:-

(i) The respondent No.3 Sri Ashoke Nandi, was a trainee and not a ‘workman’ of the appellant, within the meaning the term as envisaged of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947;

(ii) The respondent Sri Ashoke Nandi was appointed as a ‘trainee’ and for a ‘trainee’ the appellant would always reserve its right to terminate him on the basis of dissatisfactory performance;

(iii) That the fact of the respondent being appointed as a ‘trainee’ has never been disputed either before the Tribunal or before the Hon’ble Single Judge;

(iv) In such circumstances, findings of the Tribunal or the Hon’ble Single Judge, that the said respondent to be a ‘workman’, is only an erroneous interpretation and unworthy application of the settled legal principles;

(v) The dispute allegedly raised by the said respondent, cannot be termed as an ‘Industrial Dispute’, within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the respondent No.3 being not a ‘workman’, under the statute;

(vi) The dispute raised by the concerned respondent being not an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act, the Tribunal would not have any jurisdiction to entertain the same or pass an ‘award’;

(vii) As such the Tribunal has acted beyond scope of its jurisdiction and the same has rendered the concerned ‘award’ dated 04.04.2001