IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

WPA 7792 of 2025

M/s. Zydus Health Care Ltd.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Lakhotia,

Mr. Asish Kumar Das,

Mr. Sunny Nandy,

Md. Baharuzzaman.

For the Respondent no. 2 : Mr. Soumya Majumdar,

Mr. Suvodip Bhattacharjee,

Mr. Balaram Patra.

For the State : Mr. Susanta Pal,

Ms. Ananya Neogi.

Hearing concluded on : 22.07.2025 Judgment on : 19.08.2025

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging an award

passed by the learned 7^th Industrial Tribunal, in Case No. 15 of

2020, under Section 10(1B)(d) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

2. The petitioner‟s case is that it is a company incorporated under the

Companies Act, 1956 and is running a Pharmaceutical Business.

3. The petitioner states that the respondent no. 2 Subir Kumar Bandyopadhyay, the private respondent herein was a Medical Representative of the petitioner, at whose instance an industrial dispute was espoused regarding dismissal of his service on 04.06.2020 before the Conciliation officer and the same having not ended in a settlement, the Respondent No. 2 invoked the provision of section 10(1B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and on the basis of the pendency certificate issued by the conciliation officer, he made an application before the Learned Seventh Industrial Tribunal.

4. The petitioner further states that the learned tribunal passed an erroneous award on 17.01.2025 by acting in an arbitrary manner.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pandemic Covid-19 lockdown, the Management of the petitioner through its HR and business, had come up with the tasks, which the complete pan- India based sales team including the respondent No. 2 were directed to do. These tasks were to be done from home only, which included taking up training modules on Frontline 2.0. chemist mapping.

6. It is stated that each and every sales team, which is pan-India based had performed these tasks except the respondent no. 2 and few employees employed in West Bengal Region, who were led by the respondent No. 2 as their leader.

7. The petitioner issued a show cause notice to the respondent no. 2 for such alleged misconduct and considering the Covid-19 situation and the conduct of the respondent no. 2 which was in defiance of the direction of the management and the documents in support, which allegedly showed that the respondent no. 2 was the misguider and instigator of other employees, the management was constrained to terminate the services of the respondent no. 2 and sent the order of termination vide email dated 04.06.2020.

8. The respondent no. 2 was dismissed from service vide Chargesheet-cum-Order of Dismissal dated 04.06.2020 as it was the Covid-19 pandemic.

9. Vide the award under challenge, the learned 7^th Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata passed an award and on a contested hearing decided the application under Section 10(1B)(d) of the Industrial Dispute Act, on the following findings:-

“……….The OP/Company has also failed to demonstrate its stand of preliminary enquiry. The OP/Company has failed to bring any iota of evidence in support of its version as to preliminary enquiry. No preliminary enquiry report has been placed before this Tribunal. The OP/Company also failed to aver and/or depose that it supplied any copy of such alleged preliminary enquiry to the applicant/workman. In view of the settled law as to preliminary enquiry, such alleged preliminary enquiry as alleged by OP/Company is violative of the principles of natural justice and holds no water in the eye of law and is in teeth of the settled law on this aspect.

Thus, this Tribunal has no hesitation to conclude from the evidence adduced on behalf of OP/Company that the OP/Company has failed to prove any of the charges leveled by the OP/Company in Exhibit-23 being styled as "Chargesheet-cum-Order of Dismissal".

The applicant/workman has averred and deposed