RAMENDRA NARAYAN DEB Vs. EIGHTH INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against a judgment and order of amiya Kumar Mukherjee, J. discharging the rule obtained by the petitioner. The relevant facts according to the petitioner are as follows : The petitioner was appointed as a foreman under the contesting respondent No. 2 Dunbar Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) on the basis of a letter of appointment set out below : dunbar Mills Ltd. Calcutta-1, November 19th 1964. Sri R. N. Deb, 66, W. C. Banerjee Street, calutta-6. Dear- Sir, with reference to your recent inter view, we are pleased to offer the post of workshop Supervisor in cur Mills on a consolidated salary of Rs. 400/- (Rupees four hundred only) per month. You will be on probation for a period of three months. On satisfactory completion of the probationary period, you will be confirmed in the post. During this probationary period, your appointment is terminable without notice. On confirmation and at any time thereafter, your services are terminable by either side by giving a month's written notice or by paying an amount equivalent to one month's pay to the other. Your appointment will take effect from the date of your joining. Please let us know whether you accept this appointment on the foregoing terms and conditions. Accepted sd- R. N. Deb with the sanction of our director you have been designated as Workshop Foreman sd. Illegible for and on behalf of the dunbar Mills Ltd. Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. Sd. Illegible director.

(2.) THE petitioner joined the service on November 19, 1964 and on confirmation continued to work till September 18, 1971 drawing then a salary of rs. 765/- per month when he was dismissed from service by the Company. At the time of dismissal of the petitioner, an adjudication proceeding was pending before the Eighth Industrial Tribunal, west Bengal (respondent No. 1) herein-after referred to as the Tribunal, on the issue of bonus for the accounting year 1967 and the petitioner was a concerned workman in the dispute. The company dismissed the petitioner in violation of the provisions of section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 without filling any application praying for approval of the dismissal. The petitioner thereupon filed a petition before the Tribunal under section 3a, contending that the order of dismissal was a colourable exercise of p3wer under the terms of contract by way of punishment and victimisation, violating provisions of section 33.

(3.) AT the hearing, preliminary objections were raised by the Company in it is written statement, stating that the petitioner was employed in Supervisory capacity drawing wages in excess of rs. 500/-, and was not a workman not was he concerned with the pending ad judication. The Tribunal, in view of questions of fact involved for decision on the above points, proceeded with the case for hearing on evidence.