JUTE AND JUTE GOODS BUFFER STOCK ASSOCIATION Vs. SECOND INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court : This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner has challenged an order of reference dated the 16th October 1970, made by the Government of west Bengal in its Labour Department to an Industrial Tribunal constituted under section 7a of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 as to whether the termination of services of Mrinal Kanti bhowmick, the respondent No.2, was justified and to what relief the said respondent was entitled.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the respondent No.2 was a clerk in the employ of the Jute and Jute Goods buffer Stock Association, that is, the petitioner, which was a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. On the 20th May 1970, the petitioner terminated the services of the second respondent from the 30th June 1970. It is stated in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the second respondent's affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on the 20th march 1971, that on the 30th May 1970, he was served with a registered notice terminating his services addressed by the petitioner through its Secretary n. S. Kothari. Thereafter, he approached the petitioner through the said N. S. Kothari for re-consideration of the matter and recall of the order of retrenchment served on him. The Secretary was reluctant to consider his proposal. There is no affidavit-in-reply by N. S. Kothari. But one Sital Kumar gupta Deputy Secretary of the petitioner has affirmed an affidavit-in-reply on the 5th May 1971. In this affidavit the aforesaid allegations in the affidavit-in-opposition have not been denied.

(3.) On or about the 13th June 1970 the second respondent approached the conciliation Officer of the Government of West Bengal with his grievances. The Conciliation Officer wrote to the petitioner on the 13th June 1970. By letter dated the 25th June 1970, addressed to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, West Bengal (that is the Conciliation Officer) the petitioner's secretary N. S. Kothari replied to the government's Memo No.4176 /972/70 dated the 13th June 1970, stated to have been received by the petitioner on the 20th June 1970. In this reply the petitioner has contended that it does not come within the purview of 'industry' as defined in the Industrial Disputes act and, as such, no 'industrial dispute' can be raised by any of its employees. Without prejudice to this contention, the petitioner has stated that the second respondent's services had to be dispensed with owing to irregular attendance during 1969 inspite of warnings. It is stated further that the petitioner was willing to give him another 'chance' on a trial basis for one month; but the second respondent refused to avail himself of the 'chance' and wanted to collect his dues within a couple of days.