BENETT COLEMAN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject matter of challenge in this application is the order dated 16th January, 1979 passed by the First Labour Court, West Bengal. The said order is as follows : "both parties are present. Heard the workman and the representative of the company. Considering the circumstances the case is adjourned to 16th March, 1979 for hearing the two petitions filed on behalf of the workman on 22nd may, 1978 and 23rd October, 1978 and the objections given by the Company. The Company is hereby directed to bear the Railway expenses of the Workman in attending this Court on 16th March, 1979. In this matter the Company is to guide itself as if the workman is in the employ of the company and on duty. "

(2.) IN order to appreciate the challenge to this order, it may be relevant to refer to certain facts. According to the petitioner, Benett Colemam and Co. Ltd. , the respondent No. 3 was employed with effect from 1st November, 1961 in the company's service as a staff Correspondent and was a working Journalist. He was then promoted as an Industrial Correspondent, Pune on 16th November, 1976. Subsequently, I am told that the services of the respondent no. 3 were terminated. The respondent no. 3 has challenged such termination of his services by the petitioner in the appropriate Court at Pune and has. obtained certain orders of injunction. I am not, however, concerned in this application with the controversy whether the termination of. the services of the respondent no. 2 was bona fide or illegal or what is the effect of the order of the Court at Pune though I will notice that as. a contention touching the same was made by the respondent no. 3 in this application before me. It is stated by the petitioner that the Government of India had promulgated an ordinance which was later on converted into a statute, viz. Working Journalists (Fixation of Rates of Wages) Act, 1958 on 16th September, 1958. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 3 is also covered by the said Act as well as under the recommendations of the Wage Board. The petitioner further states that after the Wage Board recommendations came into being, the respondent no. 3 raised a dispute which was ultimately referred to Second Labour Court, Government of West Bengal and there was an award by the Second Labour Court to which I need not refer for the purpose of this application. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3, according to the petitioner, did not challenge the said award and after the award the respondent no. 3 raised the following disputes which were subsequently referred, on the failure of the conciliation proceedings, to the First Labour Court for industrial adjudication, viz. "whether the management is justified (i) in fixing the pay of Sri Samarjit Ghosh in a new scale other than what is indicated by the Wage Board, and at the same time enforcing the dearness allowance scheme recommended by the said Board ; (ii) in not protecting the higher total wages rates of wages available to Sri Samarjit ghosh under the Company's conditions of service prior to recommendations of the Wage board; (iii) To what relief, if any is he entitled?"

(3.) THE said order of reference was made on the 23rd August, 1977. The petitioner raised certain preliminary points of objections which have been get out in this petition to which It is not necessary for the purpose of this application to refer in detail. After the reference was made, the learned First Labour Court gave directions for filing of the respective Written statements and certain orders were passed which are also set out in the petition. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that though the respondent no. 3 was himself a lawyer he had raised an objection relating to appearance of the lawyer on behalf of the petitioner. This objection, according to the petitioner, was belated. On the 21st December, 1977, First labour Court passed certain orders and thereafter different dates were fixed for hearing. It appears that certain objections were filed on the 22nd May, 1978 and the reply was given thereto by the petitioner on the 11th January, 1979. Another objection was filed on the 23rd october, 1978 and there were certain allegations in the said petition about the grant of certain traveling allowances. On the 16th January, 1976 the respondent no. 3 wrote a letter to the Chief personnel Manager, in which he stated, inter alia, as follows: