D. P. KUNDU, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ application the writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the company) has challenged the Order No. 111 dated 4th April, 2003 passed by the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in case No. VII-270/1992. ( 2 ) SHRI B. G. Sampt was the workman of the company and he was dismissed from service w. e. f. 9. 11. 1990. ( 3 ) BY virtue of order No. 1230-IB / I. . B/131-17/89 dated 13. 1. 1992 following issues were referred to the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal for adjudication:"issue Whether the dismissal of Sri B. G. Sampat is justified? to what relief, if any, is he entitled". ( 4 ) SHRI B. G. Sampat, the workman, make an application under section 15 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) as amended by the West Bengal Amendment. ( 5 ) THE application under section 15 (2) (b) of the said Act preferred by B. G. Sampat was first decided by the Tribunal by Order No. 33 dated 18. 8. 1995. This order dated 18. 8. 1995 was challenged in a writ proceeding being W. P. No. 116 of 1996 before this High Court under writ jurisdiction. A learned Single judge of this High Court by judgement and order dated 18. 12. 1998 set aside the finding of the Tribunal dated 18. 8. 1995. The learned Single Judge set aside the findings of the Tribunal that the reference, prima facie, appears to be not sustainable. The question with regard to the scope and ambit of the provisions of section 15 (2) (b) of the said Act however, was referred by the learned Single judge before a larger Bench having regard to the conflicting decisions passed by two Division Benches of this High Court in Ganges Printing case reported in 91 Calwn 480 and Webel Nicco Electronics vs. Anima Roy, reported in 1997 (1) clj 310 . The Full Bench decided the matter and the judgement of the Full bench has been reported in 2000 (1) CLJ 17 . ( 6 ) G. A. No. 1042 of 1999 and the Writ Petition No. 116 of 1996 were disposed of by the Division Bench of this High Court by a judgement and order dated september 15, 2000. The Full Bench decided the matter and the judgement of the Full bench has been reported in 2000 (1) CLJ 17 . ( 6 ) G. A. No. 1042 of 1999 and the Writ Petition No. 116 of 1996 were disposed of by the Division Bench of this High Court by a judgement and order dated september 15, 2000. The relevant part of the aforesaid judgement and order dated September 15, 2000 passed by the Division Bench is set out herein- below :"the only question which now arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the finding of the learned Tribunal to the effect that the State government had no jurisdiction to make reference is correct or not. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the said question requires a deeper consideration at the hands of the learned tribunal inasmuch as while adjudicating upon an application under section 15 (2) (b) of the said Act aprima facie finding arrived at by it which shall not be binding at the final hearing of the reference. In this situation we are of the opinion that the jurisdictional question raised by the appellant herein should be decided by the Tribunal as a preliminary issue in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Express Newspapers, reported in AIR 1963 SC 569 . In the event such preliminary issue is decided in favour of the workman, it is needless to say that the learned Tribunal shall consider the matter relating to grant of interim relief in favour of the workman under section 15 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act afresh in the light of the aforementioned Full bench decision of this Court. We, however, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case direct the learned Tribunal to hear out and pass an appropriate order on the aforementioned preliminary issue as expeditiously as possible and not later than 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order. Both the appeal and the cross-objection are disposed of with the aforementioned directions. Parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking". Both the appeal and the cross-objection are disposed of with the aforementioned directions. Parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking". ( 7 ) PURSUANT to the aforesaid judgement and order dated September 15, 2000 passed by the Division Bench the matter went back to the Tribunal for consideration of the application of Shri B. G. Sampat under section 15 (2) (b) of the said Act filed on 7. 4. 1993. By an Order No. 79 dated 17th November, 2000 the Tribunal held that the State of West Bengal is the appropriate authority to make the reference. The company in another writ proceeding being W. P. No. 228 of 2001 challenged the aforesaid Order No. 79 dated 17th November, 2000 passed by the Tribunal. However, by a judgement and order dated 18th november, 2002 the said writ petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement and order dated 18th November, 2002 the company preferred an appeal being A. P. O. T. 37 of 2003 and also filed an application being G. A. 292 of 2003 for stay of the operation of the aforesaid judgement and order dated 18th November, 2002 passed in W. P. No. 228 of 2001. The Division Bench of this High Court on 14th February, 2003 passed the following order. "the COURT : There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Meanwhile, the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge is stayed. However, the stay order will not prevent, the Tribunal from disposing of the pending application of the workman under section 15 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes (West Bengal amendment) Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant may file the paper book prepared out of the Court within four weeks from date. The stay application is disposed of. Liberty is given for mentioning for early hearing. All parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of this order on the usual undertaking". ( 8 ) PURSUANT to the aforesaid order dated 14. 2. 2003 passed by the learned division Bench of this High Court the Tribunal heard the application under section 15 (2) (b) of the said Act filed by Shri B. G. Sampat on 17. 4. ( 8 ) PURSUANT to the aforesaid order dated 14. 2. 2003 passed by the learned division Bench of this High Court the Tribunal heard the application under section 15 (2) (b) of the said Act filed by Shri B. G. Sampat on 17. 4. 1993 and by an Order No. 111 dated 4th April, 2003 disposed of the said application. The relevant part of the aforesaid Order No. 111 dated 4th April, 2003 passed by the tribunal is set out hereinbelow :"admittedly, Sri B. G. Sampat was the employee of the company and he was dismissed from service w. e. f. 9. 11. 1990. In view of the decision referred to on behalf of the company and rival submission by the parties, it is apparently clear that the prima facie case and balance of convenience are the main ingredients in consideration of the application for interim relief. The Tribunal must be satisfied prima facie that the concerned workman has at least a plausible chance of success ultimately. It is evident that last pay drawn by b. G. Sampat on 4. 7. 1988 was Rs. 4090/ -. PW. 1 admitted in his evidence that he was drawing Rs. 4090/-- not Rs. 6090/- on the date of his termination. The fact remains that Sri Sampat was transferred to Bombay from Calcutta office by an order dated 1. 8. 1988. His representation was rejected by the management and he was terminated from service by the Management for being punished in a gambling case and for not complying the order of transfer to Bombay from Calcutta office. Sri B. G. Sampat also stated in his evidence that he is still unemployed. Shri Sampat was cross-examined at length but nothing has elicited from his evidence that he is gainfully employed elsewhere. O. P. W. 1 also stated nothing about his gainful employment. I have carefully perused the petition as well as written statement filed by the parties and submission of both sides. The evidence on record clearly establish that Sri B. G. Sampat is still unemployed and he is not gainfully employed elsewhere after his dismissal. O. P. W. 1 also stated nothing about his gainful employment. I have carefully perused the petition as well as written statement filed by the parties and submission of both sides. The evidence on record clearly establish that Sri B. G. Sampat is still unemployed and he is not gainfully employed elsewhere after his dismissal. Thus, having given anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the present case and considering the evidence on record, I am of the view that the concerned workman has been able to make out a prima facie case in granting interim relief and balance of convenience is in his favour. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Advocate appearing for the company. Shri B. G. Sampat, the concerned workman, is entitled to get interim relief as prayed for. As regards the quantity of interim relief, it is evident that the last wages drawn by Shri B. G. Sampat was Rs. 4090a per month. As such, the company is directed to pay 50% of his last pay Rs. 4090/- per month for three months from the date of reference i. e. 13. 1. 92 and then 75% of Rs. 4090/- till the date of disposal of this case. The company is also directed to pay the arrear interim relief within three months from the date of this order and current interim relief within 15th day of the succeeding month positively. The petition for interim relief is thus disposed of. To 25. 4. 2003 for hearing on merit". ( 9 ) BEFORE the Tribunal only three documents were exhibited. Those documents are (1) representation of B. G. Sampat with regard to the order of transfer (exhibit-A), (2) appointment letter of B. G. Sampat (Exhibit-B) and (3) salary register of the Bombay office of the company (Exhibit-C ). Only two witnesses were examined before the Tribunal, one is B. G. Sampat and the other one is an employee of the company who was examined as a witness for the company. ( 10 ) MR. Mitra the learned Senior Advocate for the company referred to and relied upon the following decisions. 1. Vishan Roy vs. Bayer (India) Ltd. , 1993 (2) CHN 383 , 2. Alliance Mills (Lessees) Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal, 98 CWN 284, 3. Parry Co. ( 10 ) MR. Mitra the learned Senior Advocate for the company referred to and relied upon the following decisions. 1. Vishan Roy vs. Bayer (India) Ltd. , 1993 (2) CHN 383 , 2. Alliance Mills (Lessees) Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal, 98 CWN 284, 3. Parry Co. Ltd. vs. P. C. Pal, Judge of the Second Industrial Tribunal, air 1970 SC 1334 , 4. Shama Prashant Raje vs. Ganpatrao, 2000 (7) SCC 522 , 5. Union of India vs. G. T. C. Industries Ltd. , 2003 (5) SCC 106 . ( 11 ) SHRI Ghosh, learned Advocate for the workman also referred to Vishan roy case (supra ). In addition he also relied upon Rajinder Kumar vs. Delhi administration, AIR 1984 SC 1805 . ( 12 ) MR. Mitra, learned Senior Advocate for the company argued the following points. 1. On the basis of evidence on record one learned Judge of the Tribunal passed an order dated 18. 8. 1995. 2. No fresh evidence was taken yet the Tribunal in its order dated 4. 4. 2003 which is under challenge in the present writ petition arrived at a conclusion which is different from that in the order dated 18. 8. 1995. 3. The only reason for which interim relief was granted by the Tribunal is that B. G. Sampat is not gainfully employed which cannot be taken into consideration at the time of determining whether a prima facie case is existing in favour of B. G. Sampat. 4. Order passed by the Tribunal on 18. 8. 1995 in connection with the payment under section 15 (2) (b) of the said Act was not set aside by any Court. 5. Unless there is a very good reason to depart from the reasons recorded on 18. 8. 1995 the conclusion arrived at on 18. 8. 1995 should have been accepted by the Tribunal while passing the order dated 4. 4. 2003 which is under challenge in the present writ proceeding. 6. B. G. Sampat was entitled to produce fresh evidence but he chose not to adduce any fresh evidence. In absence of any fresh evidence unless the reasons recorded in the earlier order dated 18. 8. 1995 are bad, the second order dated 4. 4. 2003 is bad. 7. B. G, Sampat ought to have stated before the Tribunal the source of his expenditure to the tune of Rs. In absence of any fresh evidence unless the reasons recorded in the earlier order dated 18. 8. 1995 are bad, the second order dated 4. 4. 2003 is bad. 7. B. G, Sampat ought to have stated before the Tribunal the source of his expenditure to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- (approx. ). 8. Avoidance of enquiry at Bombay by B. G. Sampat should also have been taken note of at the time of deciding prima facie case because the factor for ex parte enquiry was his own creation. 9. If no reasonable man acted in the way B. G. Sampat did then that was also a point to be taken into consideration for deciding a prima facie case: ( 13 ) MR. Ghosh appearing for Shri B. G. Sampat argued the following points:1. The employer has not exhibited enquiry report. Only one witness was examined before the Tribunal for the purpose of application under section 15 (2) (b) of the said Act and this witness only produced the salary register. 2. Shri B. G. Sampat has been wrongly removed from services by an order of dismissal w. e. f. 9. 11. 1990 and since the order of dismissal the applicant in the application under section 15 (2) (b) of the said Act is out of employment and without any source of income. 3. The Tribunal has to see whether the enquiry made against Shri B. G. Sampat was valid. 4. No enquiry report was placed before the Tribunal. 5. None of the annexures of the writ application was before the Tribunal. ( 14 ) IT is evident from Order No. 111 dated 4. 4. 2003, which is under challenge in the present writ proceeding that the Tribunal granted interim relief in favour of Shri B. G. Sampat only on the ground "that Shri B. G. Sampat is still unemployed and he is not gainfully employed elsewhere after his dismissal" and the Tribunal found for this ground a prima facie case has been made out by shri B. G. Sampat for interim relief under section 15 (2) (b) of the said Act. ( 15 ) THIS Court by a judgement and order dated 26. 08. 2003 in Philips India limited vs. Learned Fourth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and Ors. ( 15 ) THIS Court by a judgement and order dated 26. 08. 2003 in Philips India limited vs. Learned Fourth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and Ors. held-"after the decision of Full Bench in B. G. Sampat case (supra) existence of a prima facie case in favour of the workman is a requisite condition precedent for granting relief under section 15 (2) (b) of the said Act. It is not possible to lay down any straitjacket formula applicable to all cases for determination of a prima facie case by a Tribunal while, considering an application under section 15 (2) (b)) of the said Act. Each case has to be determined on its own merit. One additional or different fact can make a world of difference between the conclusion in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts (Regional Manager vs. Pawan Kumar, AIR 1976 sc 1766 at 1769, paragraph-7 ). Each case has to be determined on its own merit. One additional or different fact can make a world of difference between the conclusion in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts (Regional Manager vs. Pawan Kumar, AIR 1976 sc 1766 at 1769, paragraph-7 ). However, in a case where the workman has been dismissed from the services, to find out whether there is any prima facie case for the purpose of granting relief under section 15 (2) (b) of the said act it is necessary for the Tribunal to consider the following points- (1) whether an enquiry has been properly held against the workman in accordance with the principles laid down by Supreme Court in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. case (supra) and Union of India vs. Tulsiram patel (supra) as discussed hereinabove, (2) whether the chargesheet has been issued by the appropriate authority, (3) whether the domestic enquiry has been held and punishment has been imposed by violating the principle of nemo judex in re sua as discussed hereinabove, (4) whether the report and the findings of the enquiry officer has been, in writing, accepted partly or fully by the disciplinary authority and the same has been communicated to the workman, (5) whether the report and the findings of the enquiry officer has been served upon the workman, (6) whether the report and the findings of the enquiry officer is perverse, (7) whether there is any provision in the service rules about second show cause notice and if there is such provision whether the same has been complied with, (8) whether punishment imposed upon the workman is shockingly disproportionate, (9) whether the termination or dismissal of the workman amounts to victimisation or unfair labour practice, (10) whether all the three requisite conditions precedent are present in a case of termination or dismissal on ground of loss of confidence. For the purpose of computation of quantum of interim relief the factor whether the workman is gainfully employed or not should also be considered by the Tribunal as relevant factor but this is not a relevant factor for the purpose of determining whether there is a prima facie case in favour of the workman. For the purpose of computation of quantum of interim relief the factor whether the workman is gainfully employed or not should also be considered by the Tribunal as relevant factor but this is not a relevant factor for the purpose of determining whether there is a prima facie case in favour of the workman. In National Textile Corporation vs. State of Rajasthan, 1989 Lab IC 1722, a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, in paragraph-25 of the reported decision, held as follows : "it is only after recording a finding on the basis of the above mentioned principles the interim relief could be granted by the Tribunal. In management. Bihar State Electricity Board. 1971 (1) Lab LJ 389:1971 (1) lab IC 388. a Division Bench of the Patna High Court observed that merely the workman was unemployed and was undergoing great hardship cannot be a ground for grant of interim relief. " (emphasis added)" ( 16 ) IT is evident from the order under challenge that the interim relief under section 15 (2) (b) of the said Act was granted only on the ground "that Shri B. G. Sampat is still unemployed and he is not gainfully employed elsewhere after his dismissal. " In view of the decision of this Court dated 26. 08. 2003 in Philips india Limited vs. Learned Fourth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and Ors. , the factor that the workman is still unemployed and he is not gainfully employed elsewhere after his dismissal and for that reason his undergoing great hardship cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining whether there is a prima facie case in favour of the workman. This Court respectfully agrees with the view of Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Management, bihar State Electricity Board, 1971 (1) Lab IC 388 that merely the workman is unemployed and he is undergoing great hardship cannot be a ground for granting interim relief. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Order no. 111 dated 4th April, 2003 is bad in law and is liable to be set aside and quashed. ( 17 ) IN view of the discussions made hereinabove, Order No. 111 dated 4th april, 2003 passed by Third Industrial Tribunal in Case No. VIII-270/1992 is set aside and quashed. 111 dated 4th April, 2003 is bad in law and is liable to be set aside and quashed. ( 17 ) IN view of the discussions made hereinabove, Order No. 111 dated 4th april, 2003 passed by Third Industrial Tribunal in Case No. VIII-270/1992 is set aside and quashed. The Tribunal is directed to consider the application under section 15 (2) (b) of the said Act filed by Shri B. G. Sampat on 7. 4. 1993 afresh in accordance with the provisions of law and dispose of the same within sixty days from the date of communication of this judgement and order after affording just, fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the workman and also the company. In these terms the writ application is disposed of. Interim order, if there be any, is vacated. No order as to costs. The records of the Tribunal be sent down to Tribunal forthwith. ( 18 ) URGENT xerox certified copy, if applied for, be made available to the parties as quickly as possible. Writ application disposed of with direction.