Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 762 (CAL)

GAUTAM SADHAN BOSE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2016-09-28

SUBRATA TALUKDAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Subrata Talukdar, J. In this writ petition the petitioners challenge the notices issued against each of them by the Conciliation Officer and Deputy Labour Commissioner, West Bengal in connection with a conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 1947 Act) connected to the dismissal from service of an employee of the Calcutta Club Ltd. The employee concerned is impleaded as the respondent no.5 to the writ petition and the Club is impleaded as respondent no.6. 2. Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioners takes this Court to several provisions of the 1947 Act which delineate the nature and responsibilities as well as the carriage of proceedings by a Conciliation Officer. Mr. Sengupta makes the primary point based on the statutory provisions of the 1947 Act that, at best the proceedings by a Conciliation Officer is quasi-judicial in nature and cannot be equated with the proceedings of final adjudication by an Industrial Court/Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal/Arbitrator. 3. Highlighting the salient aspects of such quasi-judicial proceedings by a Conciliation Officer under the 1947 Act, Mr. Sengupta points out that upon a failure of any conciliation the matter will be referred to the Industrial Court/Tribunal for adjudication as an industrial dispute. In support of his submissions as above Mr. Sengupta relies upon two decisions of this Hon'ble Court reported in (1957) I LLJ 218 in the matter of Royal Calcutta Gulf Club Ltd. And State of West Bengal & Ors. and 2009 (3) CLJ 294 (High Court) in the matter of ABN & Amro Bank v. Union of India & Ors. 4. Mr. Sengupta, therefore, challenges the compulsive nature of the personal summons issued by the Conciliation Officer and Deputy Labour Commissioner, West Bengal against the petitioners who were and are at various points of time connected to the management of the Club. Mr. Sengupta points out that in respect of the conciliation proceeding instituted on behalf of the dismissed employee/respondent no.5 there is no personal nature of obligation under the Industrial Law nor, the Conciliation Officer, having regard to the circumference of his responsibilities under the 1947 Act, entitled to enforce any personal obligation. 5. Mr. Sengupta further argues that the summons have been issued to the petitioners in personal capacity and, in the event such summons are not obeyed, it is threatened that penal consequences shall follow against each of the individual petitioners. 5. Mr. Sengupta further argues that the summons have been issued to the petitioners in personal capacity and, in the event such summons are not obeyed, it is threatened that penal consequences shall follow against each of the individual petitioners. By way of this writ petition Mr. Sengupta, therefore, raises a basic point of error in exercise of jurisdiction by the Conciliation Officer and Deputy Labour Commissioner, West Bengal under the 1947 Act. 6. On behalf of the State respondents, Mr. Pranab Kumar Dutta, learned Senior Standing Counsel appears and submits that the writ petition is not maintainable since the dates on which each of the petitioners were summoned before the Conciliation Officer have long lapsed. Mr. Dutta also points out that each of the petitioners can maintain an individual cause of action before this Court. Therefore, the joinder of all the petitioners in a common writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Although affidavit of service has been filed and kept with the record none appears on behalf of the other respondents. 8. Having heard the parties and considering the materials as well as the law placed, this Court finds from the record that several correspondence envelop the initial suspension and the subsequent dismissal of the respondent no.5/employee. Such correspondence has been addressed by and on behalf of the Club by its Chief Executive Officer and Secretary (for short the CEO and Secretary). It is also noticed by this Court that the charge-sheet as well as the notice of the domestic enquiry were issued by the CEO and the Secretary as referred to above. 9. This Court further notices from the four corners of the 1947 Act that the conciliation proceeding essentially relates to an employer employee dispute. In such circumstances the employer, viz. the Club has a right of representation in the conciliation proceeding through its CEO and Secretary. It is not disputed at the hearing today that the records connected to the service of the respondent no.5/employee lie in the custody of the CEO and the Secretary of the Club. 10. In such circumstances the employer, viz. the Club has a right of representation in the conciliation proceeding through its CEO and Secretary. It is not disputed at the hearing today that the records connected to the service of the respondent no.5/employee lie in the custody of the CEO and the Secretary of the Club. 10. In the above view of the matter the notice issued by the Conciliation Officer threatening penal proceedings against the individual petitioners who may not be found to represent the Club now in any official capacity and, in any event, do not relate to the status of an employer of the respondent no.5/employee, is found by this Court to be ex facie not in aid of the conciliation proceeding. 11. In the backdrop of the above discussion this Court is of the considered view that the conciliation proceeding can be carried forward by the Conciliation Officer in the presence of the respondent no.5/employee and the CEO-cum-Secretary of the Club, who are obliged to render necessary assistance to the Conciliation Officer. 12. Accordingly, the individual notice of summons issued qua the petitioners to this writ petition are permanently stayed. 13. The writ petition stands disposed of in view of the above directions. 14. Since this writ petition is disposed of without calling for any affidavit, the allegations made in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted. 15. However, the petitioners are directed to put in the deficit court fees, if any, by 6th October, 2016.