SATYA NARAYAN TANTIA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The President, the Secretary, the Headmaster and other Members of the Managing Committee of Tantia High School, Calcutta, have moved the writ application challenging the Memo dated 25th June, 1985 issued by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Labour Department, referring the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No. 5, Ram Saran Mahato, to an Industrial Tribunal under section 10 read with section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners case, in short, is that respondent No. 5 was appointed as a Peon by the then authority of the School in or about 1960. Before his suspension he used to draw a total remuneration of Rs. 575.45. During his service hours he used to come heavily drunk. The Secretary received on 12th February, 1981 a complaint from the Assistant Secretary, Barabazar Library, in February 1981 on the occasion of Kavi Sammelon Utsav Day that seven pairs of shoes were stolen and the allegation was that during drunken state the said respondent handed over shoes to his own men. The said respondent No. 5 admitted the guilt by his letter of 14th February, 1985 and prayed forgiveness on the undertaking that he would not repeat such act and if he did so in future the School authority would be at liberty to take any action against him. The petitioners-state that being a full time class IV employee of the School the respondent No. 5 was not legally to take any part-time job in the said Library. On 20th February, 1981 the Headmaster wrote to respondent No. 5 asking explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his behaviour. The following day the respondent No. 5 gave explanation that to the effect that he had already written in his letter of 14th February, 1981 the true facts and expressed his sorrow for the unfortunate incident and prayed for a chance to correct himself. By another letter dated 27th February, 1981 addressed to the Headmaster he again pleaded guilty and prayed for mercy. Again on the next day i.e. 28th August, 1981 he came on duty in the School heavily drunk and quarreled with the gate-keeper attracting a crowd. He was not in a state to stand and was ordered by the Headmaster to be removed to his residence by the gate-keeper. but he refused to go and ultimately he was physically put into a rickshaw. Following this incident the Headmaster again wrote to the respondent No. 5 of the 28th August, 1981 incident and asked him to show cause by 4th September, 1981 why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. By a letter dated 31st August, 1981 he again wrote to the Headmaster accepting his guilt and assured the Headmaster that he would not repeat the same in future. On 8th April, 1983 the Headmaster received a complaint from Shiwnath Tewari, the Accountant of the School, that he found the respondent No. 5 sitting in the School bus in a drunken condition. The Headmaster on 9th April, 1983 referred the complaint to one S. K. Mookherjee, Assistant Teacher of the School, to make an enquiry. After making necessary enquiry a report was submitted to the Headmaster to the effect that the complaint of Shiwnath Tewari was correct. It was further stated that once Mr. Mookherjee himself found the respondent No. 5 in a drunken condition when the respondent No. 7, Jadu Nandan Singh, was trying to put him in a rickshaw. It was stated in the report that respondent No; 5 was a habitual alcoholic. By letter dated 8th April, 1983 the Headmaster suspended the respondent No. 5 till 16th April, 1983 and again by the letter of 14th April, 1983 the suspension was extended till 29th April, 1983. On 29th April, 1983 the Headmaster served a charge-sheet upon the respondent No. 5. The decision of suspension of the petitioners and issuance of charge-sheet was approved by the Managing Committee on 30th April, 1983. By a reply to charge-sheet dated 4th May, 1983 the respondent refuted the 4th and 5th charges. According to the Secretary the reply to the charge-sheet revealed arrogant attitude against the Headmaster and a show of indiscipline. Having considered all aspects of the matter the Secretary of the School passed an order dismissing the respondent No. 5 by his communication dated 11th May, 1983 and the said decision of the Secretary was ratified by the Managing Committee on 30th September, 1983.

(2.) Thereafter the School authority received a letter dated 7th June, 1983 from the Assistant Labour Commissioner, West Bengal, along with a copy of the letter dated 17th May, 1983 written by the respondent No. 5 to the Labour Commissioner and the School authority was requested to submit its comments within a week. Thereafter by a communication dated 3rd July, 1983 the Assistant Labour Commissioner asked the School authority to send a competent representative to see him on 19th 3uly, 1983 for a joint conference. The petitioners did not find any reason either to give a reply or to see the Assistant Labour Commissioner because it was not an industrial dispute upon which the Labour Department of the Government had any jurisdiction to intervene. The contention of the petitioners is that by virtue of Regulation 3 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Manner of Hearing and Deciding Appeal by Appeal Committee) Regulation, 1964 any decision of the Managing Committee may be challenged in appeal before the Appeal Committee and in view of this specific provision for remedy the Labour Department or the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with this matter. Surprising by order dated 25th June, 1984 the Government of West Bengal referred the matter of dismissal of respondent No. 5 to the 4th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. By Memo dated 2nd August, 1984 the said Industrial Tribunal summoned the authority of the School who appeared before it on 21st August for filing statements of case by the parties. On that date the representative of the School appeared and took time and the matter was adjourned on 28th September. Thereafter the petitioners moved the High Court and obtained the Injunction.

(3.) The contention of the petitioners is that educational institutions in West Bengal do not come within the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The whole body of employees of educational institutions are outside the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act and come under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1947 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. Hence the prayer to quash the impugned order of Reference of 25th June, 1984.