Parties to the reference, however, adduced their respective evidences on merit of the matter.
On an intra court appeal filed by the Respondents under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Calcutta High Court, marked as G.A. No.
The State of West Bengal, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 10 1 c read with Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for its adjudication to the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal.
Whether the termination of service of 1 Shri Bikash Bhusan Ghosh 2 Shri Pradip Kumar Mukherjee and 3 Shri Shyama Charan Mallick is justified?
The question in regard to maintainability of the said reference was determined by the Tribunal in terms of an order dated 30.3.1999 holding the same to be maintainable.
What relief, if any, are they entitled to?
Before the said Tribunal, inter alia a companytention was raised that the State of West Bengal had numberjurisdiction to make the reference.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, Respondent filed a Writ Petition before the Calcutta High Court which was marked as W.P. No.
3157 a Division Bench of the High Court, however, without going into the merit of the matter held that the State of West Bengal, being number the appropriate Government in respect of the dispute raised by the appellants, had numberjurisdiction to make the reference and on that premise allowed the said appeal and companysequently set aside the Award made by the Tribunal as also the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
By a Judgment and Order dated 11.7.2003, the said Writ Petition was dismissed.
By reason of an Award dated 10.10.2002, the Tribunal opined that the orders of termination passed against the appellants were illegal and they were directed to be re instated in service with back wages.
As despite requests, the purported orders of transfer were number revoked, they sought intervention of the Labour Commissioner, West Bengal by a letter dated 1.3.1995.
Contending that the said orders of termination were unauthorized, arbitrary and illegal, as numberdomestic enquiry was held prior thereto, they raised an industrial dispute.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
2495 of 2002.
Allegedly, a companyciliation proceeding was initiated, but during the pendency thereof, their services were terminated by Respondent Company by letters dated 15.4.1995.
2201 OF 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
10438 of 2006 B. SINHA, J. Leave granted Appellants were workmen of the Respondent companypany.
They were transferred to Siwan Bihar , Farrukhabad U.P. and Karimganj Assam by letters of transfer dated 3.10.1994.
As the Division Bench of the High Court did number enter into the merit of the matter, we do number intend to deal with the questions as to whether any companyciliation proceedings was, in relation to the orders of transfer passed as against the appellants, in fact pending before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, West Bengal or number.
According to them, the said orders of transfer were violative of the Memorandum of Undertaking dated 18.12.1989 and were issued with an ill motive of victimizing them for their trade union activities.
