SWAPAN DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra court appeal at the instance of workman is directed against the order dtd. 8/5/2017 passed in WP 223 (W) of 2017 by which the challenge made by the appellant to the award passed by the 1 st Labour Court in Case No.3 of 2011 was dismissed. We note that the writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage though the appearance of the learned advocate for the respondent management have been noted in the matter. This fact was not disputed before us.

(2.) After hearing the learned advocates for the parties as well as learned senior counsel for the second respondent management and after noting the prayers sought for in the writ petition and the findings/observations made by the learned Single Bench for dismissal of the writ petition, we find that serious error has been committed by the learned Writ Court in non suiting the appellant in his challenge to the order of the 1st Labour Court, Kolkata on a technical ground. The learned Single Bench in more than two places observed that the challenge made by the appellant is only with regard to the order of the Labour Court refusing to exercise its jurisdiction under Sec. 11A of Industrial Disputes Act and the order upholding the domestic enquiry which was a separate order dtd. 23/12/2015 was not the subject matter of challenge and therefore the appellant writ petitioner cannot at this stage question the award on those aspects. The learned Single Bench has thereafter opined that the Labour Court has very limited scope of interference with regard to sentence (punishment) imposed and if the proceeding does not contain any procedural or legal error the issue of sentence (punishment) is generally not interfered with. The learned Writ Court has not touched upon the merits of the award passed by the Labour Court which undoubtedly culminated in the order dtd. 31/5/2016.

(3.) We have gone through the prayers sought for in the writ petition and we find that though the appellant has challenged the order dtd. 31/5/2016 the prayer has not been restricted insofar as the exercise of jurisdiction by the Labour Court under Sec. 11A of the Act but he has also questioned the punishment imposed, the validity of the domestic enquiry, alleged bias in the enquiry proceeding and other contentions as may be available under law. Therefore the subject matter of challenge before the Writ Court was the proceedings in its entirety. Therefore we have no hesitation to hold that the learned Writ Court misconstrued the scope of the writ petition. It is argued by the learned counsel for the management that the Labour Court has got power to grant interim relief and if an order has been passed and the same remains unchallenged, the workman cannot after final award is passed, question the same.