File No.LABR-22015(15)/13/2018-IR SEC-Dept. of LABOUR 109 1/60720/2019 Government of West Bengal Labour Department, I. R . Branch N.S. Buildings, 12th Floor, 1, K.S. Roy,Road, Kolkata - 700001 No. Labr/ .~.~~. /(LC-IR)/22015(15)/13/2018 . DateJ6 ['.09.\ 2019 ORDER WHEREAS under the Government of West Bengal, Labour Department Order No. 953 -IR/10L-73/08 dated 17.09.15 the Industrial Dispute between M/s Titagarh Wagons Ltd., Unit: Titagarh Steels (Formerly Titagarh Industries Ltd.), 1, Abdul Quddus Road, P.O. - Titagarh, Dist. - North 24 Parganas, Pin - 700119 (Corporate Office: Titagarh Towers, 756 Anandapur, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata - 700107), Registered Office: 3, Loudon Street, Flat IB, Kolkata - 700017 and their workman Sri Bibekananda Sinha, Sahid Jahar Ghosh Sarani, P.O. Nimta, Kolkata - 700049 regarding the issues mentioned in the said order, being a matter specified in the Second Schedule to the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), was referred for adjudication to the Judge, Third Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata. AND WHEREAS the Judge of the said Third Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata, has submitted to the State Government its award on the said Industrial Dispute. NOW, THEREFORE,in pursuance of the provisions of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Governor is pleased hereby to publish the said award as shown in the Annexure hereto. ANNEXURE (Attached herewith) By order of the ~. Deputy Secretary I ~)t to the Governme~t of West Bengal No. 41'o."'/~?-.'1J:(?;.(ft =! ~ Date :~I t.:'/ 2019 Copy, with a copy of the Award, forwarded for information and necessary action to : 1. Mis Titagarh Wagons Ltd., Unit: Titagarh Steels (Formerly Titagarh Industries Ltd.), 1, Abdul Quddus Road, P.O. - Titagarh, Dist. - North 24 Parganas, Pin - 700119. 2. Sri Bibekananda Sinha, Sahid Jahar Ghosh Sarani, P.O. Nimta, Kolkata - 700049. 3. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, W.B. In-Charge, Labour Gazette. 4. The O.S.D. & E.O. Labour Commissioner, W.B. New Secretariat ~ings, 1, K. S. Roy Road, 11th Floor, Kolkata- 700001. Vlhe O.S.D., IT Cell, Labour Department, with the request to cast the Award in the Department's website. ~b-9"9-_ Deputy Secretary Date: ...i!t/tfl/"f 2019 Copy forwarde for information to : 1.The Judge, T ird Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata with reference to his Memo No. 11 7 - L.T. dated 16.08.2019. 2. The Joint Lab ur Commissioner (Statistics), West Bengal, 6, Church Lane, Kolkata -700001. Deputy Secretary BEFORE THE THIRD INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, WEST BENGAL PRESENT: SRI SUBERTHI SARKAR, JUDGE, THIRD INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL. CASE NO. VIII-38 of 2015 DATE - 30thJuly,2019 Sri Bibekananda Sinha, Sahid lahar Ghosh Sarani, P.O. Nimta, Kolkata-700 049 .................... Applicant -vS- Mis. Titagarh Wagons Ltd., Unit: Titagarh Steels [Formerly Titagarh Industries Ltd.] I, Abdul Quddus Road, P.O. Titagarh, North 24-Parganas, Pin -700 119, (Corporate Office: Titagarh Towers, .. 756 Anandapur, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata - 700 107, Registered Office: 3, Loudon Street, Flat IB, Kolkata - 700017) .......... Opposite Party AWARD This case was referred by the Government of West Bengal, Labour Department vide G.O. No. 953- IR.lIRlI0L-73/08 dt. 17.9.2015 U/s. 10 relating to an Industrial Dispute between Mis. Titagarh Wagons Ltd., Unit: Titagarh Steels [Formerly Titagarh Industries Ltd.], 1, Abdul Quddus Road, P.O. Titagarh, North 24-Parganas, Pin - 700 119, (Corporate Office: Titagarh Towers, 756 Anandapur, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata - 700 107, Registered Office: 3, Loudon Street, Flat IB, Kolkata - 700 (17) and their Workman namely Sri Bibekananda Sinha, Sahid lahar Ghosh Sarani, P.O. Nimta, Kolkata- 700 049 to this Tribunal for adjudication of the following issues: ISS U E(S) I. Whether the termination of service of Sri Bibekananda Sinha by way of refusal of employment w.e.f 02.06.2014 by the Management of Mis. Titagarh Wagons Ltd. (TSL) is justified? 2. To what relief, if any, the workman is entitled? 1. The alleged workman namely Shri Bibekananda Sinha by filing written statement contended that he joined as 'technician' being appointed by the Company vide Appoint letter No. Appoint-TIll dt. 01.04.2004. He was a trainee technician from 13.08.96 and since then he had been working with sincerity, diligence and honesty and there was no any black spot against him in his service record. Being satisfied about his work and conduct, the Company revised his salary firstly w.e.f. 06.09.2006 and thereafter w.e.f. 01.07.2010 in Grade B-1. Rank ~Y;:""".j-" ~, ;' !;;;:;":':~"-,_, ,,- 'Assistant' in basic pay scale of Rs. 4000-300-5500-413-7563/- and other allowances in ~",,:-;-;:-;;~:<' s of Company's letter dt. 26.07.2010. The nature of job was only technical as the ~/~. '.", \ ~e ~:' .'. ::.:~~ .: ~ man had trade - 'Fitter', being obtained a certificate from I.T.l. He never did any -i' J. ~.; A r-~.;!)~ Contd. ,,,page 2 "I '. /,... ~. '-.....~.' ...... ~",.//". '':.Jt;:.._ •. _ ,~:. ........ • . 2 supervisory job and he was not a supervisor at any point of time. Further case is that, on 29.05.2014 the workman was asked to resign, but he could not understand the reason behind it. However, on 02.06.2014, when the petitioner went to resume his duty, as usual, the security guard as per instruction of the Management prevented him to join his duty and stopped him to enter the premises of the Company. It is contended that at the time of termination, neither retrenchment compensation nor any notice pay was paid to the workman by the Management. Accordingly, the petitioner had no other alternative but to raise a formal dispute by his letter dt. 12.06.2014 and 13.08.2014. As no reply was received the workman raised an Industrial Dispute before the Office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Barrackpore by his letter dt. 22.09.2014. The Assistant Labour Commissioner tried his best to settle the matter in a conciliation level but due to the adamant attitude of the Management, there was no fruitful settlement. The workman further contended that the Company had taken a decision to reduce • the number of workmen by hook & crook, and for implementing the said unfair labour practice the Management firstly attempted to target the workman with a false plea that he was working a supervisory job and that he has abandoned the service. The workman strongly denied such alleged contention of the Company. As no settlement was arrived at, the Government referred the matter before this Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute. It is contended further that the workman is still unemployed and there is no source of income of the workman, at present. His last drawn wages were Rs.81701- per month. Thus, stating the dismissal order by the Company as unlawful and unjustified, the workman has prayed for granting relief, directing the Company to reinstate him in service with full back-wages for the period of forced unemployment together with consequential relief. 2. By filing written statement, the Company denied the contention of the workman, as well as the Company prayed for dismissal of the prayer of the workman. It is specifically contended that after passing of the Central Act 2A (2), Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is obsolete in view of the provision of the Law, that the latter Act will prevail. It is specifically contended that the present applicant is not a workman within the meaning of the Act, as he being a technician (Foreman) was doing only supervisory work and he never did any work specifically mentioned U/s. 2(s) ofIndustrial Disputes Act. It is contended that the Company never terminated his service rather he himself discontinued his job and maliciously raised the issue of termination for his wrongful action. The Company accordingly raised these preliminary issues which go to the very route of the jurisdiction of the matter vis-it-vis jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It is submitted that the workman Sri Bibekananda Sinha was appointed as technician on probation w.e.f. 01.04.2004. It is specifically contended that he used to do only supervisory job, practically he was a Foreman under whom several workers were working. It is contended that all of a sudden on 12.06.2014, the Management received a letter from the applicant stating therein, his service was terminated on 02.06.2014 and security has stopped him to enter into Contd .... page :3 3 the premises of the Company. Such allegation by the workman is false and frivolous. Again on 26.08.2014 the applicant wrote a letter alleging that he was prevented to enter into the premises of the Company. Thereafter, the applicant raised a dispute before the Dy. Labour Commissioner vide his letter dt. 22.09.2014 with false and frivolous stories. It is further contended that the Conciliation Officer, without considering the case of the parties sent reference in a relaxed and casual manner. It is further contended that the written statement filed by the workman are false and baseless. The allegation of asking for submission of resignation is totally false. The Company did not terminate his service and that he himself left/abandoned the job on his own accord. Thus, denying the case as well as the allegation of the workman, the Company has prayed for refusing the relief as prayed for by the workman. 3. The workman Sri Bibekananda Sinha has examined himself as P.W.-1. On the other hand, only one witness namely Shri Ashoke Kr. Saha was examined as O.P.W• I on behalf of the Company. The following documents were produced and proved on behalf of the Company: On Merit S.L Exhibit Name of Documents Documents Exhibit Date No.