JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. WPA 27751 of 2025 has been preferred challenging an award dated 22^nd July, 2025 passed by the learned Fifth Industrial Tribunal in Case No. 04 of 2009 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. WPA 27757 of 2025 has been preferred challenging an award dated 22^nd July, 2025 passed by the learned Fifth Industrial Tribunal in Case No. 03 of 2009 under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3. Vide the impugned order dated 22.07.2025, the learned Judge, 5^th Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata was pleased to dismiss the petitioner‟s case under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act on contest without cost.

4. Vide the impugned order dated 22.07.2025 under Section 33A of the I.D. Act, the tribunal on setting aside the order of termination of the employee, granted compensation of Rs. 10(Ten) lakh.

5. The petitioner‟s case is that the petitioner No. 1 is company registered under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, while the Respondent No. 3 is a former employee, who was appointed as a lady stenographer in 1995 and occupied a position of confidence, dealing with confidential administrative matters. Owing to grave misconduct committed by the Respondent No.3, a full-fledged domestic enquiry was conducted, wherein the charges were duly proved against her and she was dismissed from service by a letter dated 10.06.2009. As an abundant precaution, the petitioner no. 1 filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act being Case No. 04 of 2009 on the same date.

6. It appears from the writ applications that considering the grave misconduct of the respondent no. 3 committed on and from 23^rd April, 2008 to 29^th April, 2008, the petitioner no. 1 issued a charge sheet on 5th May, 2008, noting the charge framed against her.

7. The respondent no. 3 was placed under suspension pending enquiry by the letter of the management of the petitioner no. 1 dated 2^nd May, 2001. A domestic enquiry was conducted and the respondent no. 3 was given all reasonable opportunity to defend herself in compliance with the principles of natural justice. She was duly issued notice well in advance for attending enquiry, was allowed to cross examine witnesses produced by the management of the petitioner company and also to lead evidence on her behalf. All the documents placed in the enquiry on behalf of the management was also disclosed to the respondent no. 3 at the beginning, in order to give her ample chance to meet the allegations in the charge sheet.

8. Copies of the day to day proceeding were also supplied to her by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer ultimately submitted his report dated 4th April, 2009 holding all the charge as framed in the charge sheet as proved. A copy of the enquiry report was also duly forwarded to the respondent no. 3 by a letter dated 23rd April, 2009, calling for her explanation to the said enquiry report. The respondent no. 3 replied to the said second show cause notice by her letter dated 29th April, 2009.

9. Considering the response of the respondent no. 3, the management of the petitioner no. 1 on 10th June, 2009 was compelled to issue a letter dismissing her service from the petitioner no. 1. Simultaneously the respondent No.3 was also paid Rs.8,150/- towards her one month's salary.

10. An earlier purported industrial dispute was referred, vide an order of reference under G.O. No. 1552/IR dated 28^th December, 2006 at the instance of the respondent no. 4, for adjudication on the following issues:-

a) Whether demand of the union for revision of grade and scale of pay and other service conditions of the lady stenographer i.e., transport subsidy, lunch subsidy, medical allowance, leave transport assistance is justified?

b) What relief, if any, are they entitled to?

11. The learned Tribunal had initiated the adjudication proceeding being Case No.VIII-02/2007. Petitioner No. 1 contested the said reference case and raised objection as to the maintainability of the reference, i