(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the award dated 14.12.1999 passed in case no. VIII-130 of 1998 by the learned First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a workman in the respondent no. 2's paper mill with effect from 2nd June, 1971 and his service was confirmed on and from 2nd June, 1972. THEreafter, the petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Assistant and worked in such capacity upto 1985. Subsequently, the company declared a lock out and the petitioner was rendered unemployed. When the company reopened under a new management and the petitioner continued as Laboratory Assistant with a new pay scale. THEreafter the designation of the petitioner was changed to Supervisor. It is the petitioner's case that although the designation of his post was that of a Supervisor he had no disciplinary control over any workman and had no independent right or authority to take any binding decision on behalf of the company. It is further the petitioner's case that during the course of his employment he was subject to an illegal disciplinary proceeding and dismissed from service. Over this, a reference was made for adjudication to the First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal on the following issues : A. Whether the dismissal of Sri Ramen Chandra Ghosh from service w.e.f. 11.05.1996 by the management of M/s. Everest Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. is justified? B. To what relief, if any, he is entitled to ?
(3.) IN support of his contention he relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of D.P. Maheshwari Vs. Delhi Admn. and others reported in AIR 1984 SC 153 and that of this Court in the case of The Secretary (Policy) Regional Director (Food) Employees Association Vs. Food Corporation of INdia and others reported in 2000 (2) CHN 518. He further submitted that the decision of the tribunal on merits on this preliminary issue was also contrary to the materials on record and the tribunal had illegally come to a finding that merely because the petitioner was given the designation 'Supervisor' he was not a workman under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. Mr. Moitra in support of such contention relied upon decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Hussan Mithu Mhasvadkar Vs. Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board and another reported in AIR 2001 SC 3290 and in the case of Sharad Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others reported in 2002 (3) Supreme 283.