SUMANTO BANERJEE Vs. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been preferred against the order dtd. 8/10/2013 in WP No. 10138 (W) of 2011. The said writ petition was filed by the management of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited presently known as Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited. The challenge in the said writ petition was to an award passed by the second Labour Court, Calcutta in Case No. 21 of 2005 filed under Sec. 10(1B)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (the Act). The said dispute was raised by the employee Mr. Sumanto Banerjee challenging the order of termination passed by the management dtd. 9/7/2005. The Labour Court by award dtd. 28/4/2011 held the order of termination to be bad in law, set aside the same and directed reinstatement of the workmen however restricted the back wages only to 50%. The writ petitioner, who shall herein after referred to as management, being aggrieved by such award challenged the same by filing the said writ petition. The employee appears to have been satisfied with the award and no challenge was made by him, though 50% of the back wages was denied. The learned Single Bench by the impugned order allowed the writ petition in part while affirming the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the workmen set aside that portion of the award which granted 50% back wages to the workmen. Thus, the management being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Bench in confirming the award passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement has filed the appeal in FMA No. 1388 of 2014 and the employee being aggrieved by the denial of 50% back wages has filed the appeal in FMA No. 2276 of 2016. Since both the appellants are aggrieved by the order passed in the writ petition the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Soumya Majumder assisted by Mr. Victor Chatterjee, the learned advocate appearing for the management and Mr. Supriyo Bose assisted by Ms. Sona Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the employee/ workman.

(3.) The employee was appointed as medical service representative by the management by letter of appointment dtd. 8/11/1993. The letter of appointment mentioned about the nature of duties and responsibilities of the workman apart from the scale of pay and other allowances and other conditions of service. It is not disputed by the management that the employee was sincere in the discharge of his duties and was termed as a star performer. By letter dtd. 27/9/2002, the management in appreciation of his good performance promoted him as the District Manager with effect from 1/10/2002. The said promotion order also contained the details of the revised salary allowances and other conditions of service. The employee also signed a confidentiality agreement dtd. 1/10/2002. According to the management, the employee was on unauthorized leave for 58 days. By letter dtd. 18/5/2005, he was informed by the management that it has been decided to re-designate him as a Uro Executive with immediate effect and he will operate from Gauhati as his head-quarters, he was given 10 days joining time to take up the new assignment. Subsequently by communication dated June 02, 2005, he was informed that he was transferred from Calcutta to Gauhati as Uro Executive and 10 days joining time was given to him to take up the new assignment. The employee was advised to report to Gauhati not later than 13/6/2005 for further instructions, he was warned that in the event of failing to report to Gauhati, it would be assumed that he is not interested to serve the management and that he has abandoned the job on his own accord and his name will be struck of the rolls of the company without further reference to him. It is a matter of fact that he did not join duty at Gauhati. The management by letter dtd. 28/6/2005 extended date for joining duty at Gauhati till 4/7/2005. The said letter also contained a similar warning as contained in the letter dtd. 2/6/2005. According to the management, the employee was unauthorisedly absent and it disobeyed the order of transfer and owing to such reasons, by letter dtd. 4/7/2005, he was informed by the management that it has been decided to terminate his services with immediate effect as per the terms and conditions of his employment vide letter dtd. 27/9/2005 and he is being paid one month's salary in lieu of the notice period, he was advised to hand over the company's property to the regional manager at Gauhati and obtain no-dues certificate from the stockiest and send the same to the branch officer to enable them to settle the full and final accounts. The employee raised industrial dispute which commenced with the conciliation proceedings. However, the conciliation failed and certificate was issued by the conciliation officer. It is thereafter the workman raised the industrial dispute under Sec. 10(1B)(d) of the Act. The Labour Court framed the following four issues for consideration:-