Indofil Chemicals Company vs State of West Bengal and Others

Arindam Sinha, J.—The petitioner has sought quashing of an award dated 10th November, 2004 passed by the 2nd Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal on a reference made by the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal. By the impugned award the Tribunal held that the termination of service of the private respondent No. 3 was not justified, the petitioner was directed to re-instate him and pay full back wages subject to adjustment. The petitioner''s grounds of challenge are, inter alia, the impugned award suffers from errors apparent on the face of it and is utterly perverse.

The undisputed facts regarding the private respondent being sought to be retrenched are that the petitioner by its letter dated 22nd August, 1995 informed the private respondent, for the interest of economic running of its branch office it had been decided to reduce establishment expenses and as such his services were no more required. Retrenchment compensation was offered to be paid and the private respondent advised to accept the same. By a letter of the following day the petitioner placed on record, inter alia, the private respondent had refused to accept the letter dated 22nd August, 1995 with its enclosure of demand draft for Rs. 24000/- for which the same was being sent under cover of the present letter, by registered post.

The issues under reference before the Tribunal were:

"1. Whether the termination of service of Sri Shambhu Nath Maity is justified?

What relief, if any, is he entitled?"

In the hearing the petitioner confined itself to the position of having duly retrenched the private respondent due to lack of business at its Kolkata office and in the interest of economic running of the same. Submissions were made at length by Mr. Soumya Majumdar, learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Anant Kumar Shaw, learned advocate for the private respondent. Notes on arguments were also filed by the said parties.

It appears from the impugned award the Tribunal found, inter alia, the private respondent had served the petitioner for 11 years and worked continuously for 340 days in a year. The petitioner had failed to produce the attendance register to prove the contrary. The petitioner''s witness had stated in his evidence that in the year 1995 the business of the petitioner was not running well and its economic condition was bad. He had deposed the petitioner took steps to cut down the expenses in different ways and the private respondent was declared surplus staff. He stood retrenched as on 1st September, 1995. However, the petitioner had failed to produce the balance sheet or any other document to show its business was not running for which it was compelled to reduce the expenses in different ways including declaring the private respondent as surplus staff. On the other hand, the Tribunal found, it was admitted the turn over of the petitioner in the last financial year was Rs. 35 crore in the Eastern Zone. It was not the case of the petitioner that it did not engage any other person as peon/runner in place of the private respondent. The petitioner''s witness had admitted that at present one person had been engaged as peon/runner on temporary basis. The Tribunal also did not find favour with the plea of the petitioner that the private respondent had accepted his retrenchment. In those circumstances the Tribunal held the termination of service of the concerned workman was not justified and he was entitled to re-instatement with full back wages.

This court finds from the undisputed facts reproduced above, the private respondent could not be said to have accepted his alleged retrenchment. The earlier challenge of the petitioner to the said reference being made, did not succeed. It appears the Tribunal found the reasons for retrenchment alleged by the petitioner could not be substantiated. The issues being, inter alia, whether the termination was justified, the findings and reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be said to suffer from either errors apparent on the face of the record or being perverse. In view of the aforesaid it is neither necessary to go into the dispute raised by the private respondent that in any event the retrenchment compensation was inadequate, nor to refer to the decisions relied upon by the parties for the purpose of disposal of this matter. The writ petition is without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat copies of this judgment be made available to the parties in compliance with the formalities, in regard thereto.

Later

On the judgment being delivered, Mr. Sengupta, learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner prays for stay of operation of the same. Such prayer is considered and refused.