SHREE HANUMAN FOUNDRIES LTD Vs. HEM RANJAN DEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner company feels aggrieved by an award made by the Second labour Court, West Bengal, which held that the petitioner Company was unjustified in dismissing two of the employees and directed their re-instatement in service, with emoluments unpaid during the period of their forced unemployment. The only grievance made by the petitioner company in this Rule is that respondent No. 1, Hem Ranjan Deb, was not qualified for appointment as the presiding officer of the Labour Court, inasmuch as he did not hold any "judicial office" in India for not less than seven years, prior to his such appointment, as required under sub-section 3 (a) of section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) PARAGRAPH 8 (B) of the petition contains particulars of the career of respondent No. 1 and is to the following effect :- (i) January 23, 1940-Appointed as Sub-Deputy Collector on probation. (ii) January 24, 1940-Appointed as Sub-Deputy Collector and Circle Officer. (iii) July 1, 1940-Invested with powers of a Third Class Magistrate. (iv) January 23, 1941-Confirmed in the post of Sub-Deputy Collector. (v) July 1, 1950-Invested with powers of a second class Magistrate. (vi) April 1, 1952-Invested with powers of a First Class Magistrate. (vii) July 27, 1959-Appointed as the Presiding Officer of the Second Labour Court.

(3.) THERE is some dispute about the dates when the respondent No. 1 was invested with different classes of Magisterial power but I have proceeded on the basis of the dates given in the affidavit-in-opposition, because the said dates were not shown to be wrong and at the time of the argument the correctness of said dates was not seriously challenged by Mr. Mahadev Hazra, the learned Advocate for the petitioner Company.