DURGAPUR PROJECTS LTD Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point involved in this writ application is whether the learned 7th Industrial Tribunal by order No. 13 dated March 29, 1995 was justified in granting interim relief under Section 15(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 from the date of dismissal of service of the workman.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this writ application are as follows :-- On December 15, 1977 a charge-sheet cum-suspension order was issued against the respondent workman for theft of Company's property and for leaving place of work during working hours without permission. The Respondent No. 4 having denied the said charges the domestic enquiry was held in terms of the rules of the company in which the said workman was chargesheeted. He was found guilty of the charges in the said enquiry and he was accordingly dismissed from service on April 10, 1978. The Respondent No. 4 thereafter referred the matter to the Assistant Labour Commissioner for reconciliation and the said proceeding having failed a reference was made by the Government to the Ninth Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the issue "whether the termination of service of Sri Tushar Kanti Ghosh is justified? And what relief, if, any, is he entitled to?". The matter was subsequently transferred to the 7th Industrial Tribunal. The workman in the meantime filed an application under Section 15(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was disposed of by the learned Tribunal after hearing both sides in favour of the workman by which subsistence Allowance in terms of the said Sectionl5(2)(b) was allowed to the workman from the date of dismissal from service.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Tribunal the petitioner Company has preferred this application challenging the said order on the ground that the learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction to take up the application for interim relief as the statutory period of 60 days after reference for hearing the matter had expired when the matter was taken up for hearing and that the petitioner was under no obligation to pay subsistance allowance from the date of dismissal when there was no reference before the Tribunal and that the learned Tribunal did not consider the fact that the dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer after 12 years from the dismissal of the workman from service.