CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD Vs. CONILLACION OFFICER AND JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of Sabyasachi mukharji, J. , dated 25 August 1977, reported in 1978i L. L. N. 68, whereby the rule obtained by the appellant, the Calcutta electric Supply Corporation, Ltd. , (hereinafter referred to as the company), on an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution was discharged, the facts giving rise to the proceeding, according to the company, are as follows:

(2.) THE company is carrying on the business of generation and distribution of electricity for reward and respondent 2, Amaresh roy, was a clerk in its revenue department. On 3 August 1976, the company dismissed roy for having misappropriated money belonging to the company. At the time of dismissal no conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was pending between the company and its workmen before any Conciliation Officer. As a matter of abundant caution the company made an application before P. C. Sen, Conciliation officer and Joint Labour Commissioner, government of West Bengal, under S. 33 (2) (b)of the Industrial Disputes Act for approval of the said dismissal. It was stated in the application which is dated 3 August 1976, that the said workman was asked to show cause against the allegations of having illegally collected cash from the consumers of the company as specifically named against electric bills for about Rs. 28,000 and also for having misappropriated the same. The workman replied to the said show-cause notice which was found to be unsatisfactory and thereafter in accordance with its standing orders an enquiry committee was constituted. Enquiry was held on 25 June 1975, and the appellant was given opportunity to defend his case-After the conclusion of the enquiry the enquiry proceeding along with the findings of the enquiry committee were forwarded to the deputy Chief Commercial Officer who sent it again to the Chief Commercial Officer. The management considered the enquiry report and came to the conclusion that the workman was guilty of the charges proved against him and that he should be dismissed in absence of any extenuating circumstances. The company thereafter dismissed the workman concerned by order, dated 3 August 1976, and offered him one month's wages in terms of S. 33 (2) (b)of the Industrial Disputes Act. The company on the same day submitted an application to the Conciliation Officer and Joint Labour commissioner, Government of West Bengal, for approval of the action taken as it might be contended that certain industrial disputes between the company and its workmen were pending before him. It was accordingly prayed that the approval should be given to the action taken by the company dismissing the workman as stated above.

(3.) THIS application came up before p. C. Sen, Conciliation Officer and Joint labour Commissioner, Government of west Bengal, respondent I, who, though he was also the Conciliation Officer, was not described as such in the company's application under Art. 226. P. C. Sen as the Conciliation Officer heard the parties and passed an order on 5 April 1977, on the said application. It was held that in regard to two disputes, namely "absence due to sickness arid "age verification" there was no industrial dispute pending before the Conciliation Officer. In regard to the charter of demands, which was item (3) of dispute, it appears the co-ordination committee of Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation unions submitted a charter of demands to the Joint Labour Commissioner, West bengal, on 17 April 1976, whereon the said officer issued a notice to the company and to the unions to attend tripartite meeting at the chamber of the Labour Minister at writers buildings on 26 April 1976, for discussion. After protracted discussion, a settlement was reached on 10 February 1977, in respect of some disputes and there was another tripartite settlement which was signed on 31 March 1977, in respect of some other disputes. The conciliation Officer further stated in his said order that a report under S. 12 (4) of the industrial Disputes Act was submitted by him, when, at one stage, prospect for the settlement seemed to be bleak. This report was filed in the month of November 1976 to the Labour Department, Government of West bengal. It was held that the company dismissed the workmen from service on 3 August 1976, during the pendency of the conciliation proceeding in respect of certain dispute particularly on the charter of demands and, therefore, the company's contention in respect thereof was erroneous and provisions of s. 33 (2) (b) were attracted in this case. The order concluded with the following directions: "the undersigned as a Conciliation officer, therefore, deemed it fit to order that the company's preliminary objections regarding coverage under S. 33 (2) (6) of the Industrial Disputes Act are not tenable in law and in fact. The Calcutta Electric supply Corporation-management and the worker concerned are, therefore, requested to appear before the undersigned for the further hearing of the case on 22 April 1977, at 3. 30 p. m. " the petitioner moved this Court against this order- on 9 June 1977, and obtained a rule calling upon respondent 1, p. C. Sen, the Joint Labour Commissioner of the Government of West Bengal, the workman as also the State of west Bengal to show cause why a writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued setting aside, cancelling or quashing the order, dated 5 April 1977, passed by respondent 1 and also why a writ in the nature of prohibition should not be issued commanding them not to proceed further in the said application or to exercise jurisdiction in any manner in respect thereof. There was, it appears, a stay of further proceeding in the meantime till the disposal of the rule.