RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner (M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited) challenges the award dated 10.12.2009 as contained in Annexure-P/30 passed by the Industrial Tribunal (5th Court), West Bengal pertaining to Reference No. 222-I.R./IIL-190/04 dated 04/16.3.2005 whereby and whereunder it was held that the management was not justified in drawing an inference that the concerned workman (Respondent No. 3, Subrata Bagchi) had abandoned his job and therefore the management was also not justified in terminating his service which was also bad for non-compliance of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Consequently, the Petitioner was directed to pay 50% of the backwages from the date of the absence of the concerned workman till the period of his reinstatement. The Petitioner Company was further directed to reinstate the concerned workman within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the award.

(2.) The private Respondent No. 3 (concerned workman, Subrata Bagchi), according to the Petitioner, was appointed as a Sales representative on 14.1.1982 by an appointment letter issued from the Office of the Company at New Delhi. Pursuant to the letter of appointment, an Agreement was entered upon containing terms and conditions of service.

(3.) Mr. Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and referring to the said Agreement at Clause 13 thereof (Annexure-P/1 at page 45), stated that the said Clause clearly stipulated that any dispute pertaining to appointment, termination or dismissal or any dispute with regard to any claim or payment of damages shall be dealt with or adjudicated upon by Courts within the Territory of Delhi and therefore, the finding of the Tribunal holding that since the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the State of West Bengal, the said State had the right to refer the dispute to the said Tribunal for adjudication, is a finding, which is wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submits that the concerned workman, while deposing before the Tribunal had clearly stated on 21.4.2009 in his cross-examination (at page 159 of the Writ Petition) that he had not raised any dispute at Delhi and at the time of his termination of service, he was at Bhubaneswar but he did not raise any dispute at Bhubaneswar also. Learned Counsel therefore raised the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as a preliminary issue. The same is taken up accordingly as a preliminary issue.