Case: Ananda Bazar Patrika Ltd Vs. Its Workmen

1. This appeal arises form an industrial dispute between the appellant, the Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd., and the respondents, its workmen. The appellant is a private limited company and carries on the business of printing and publishing newspapers, namely, Ananda Bazar Patrika which is Bengali Daily. Desh which is a Bengali Weekly, and Hindustan Standard which is an English daily newspaper. Mr. Pulakesh De Sarkar was appointed by the management of the appellant as journalist in March, 1940, and has been working with the appellant since then until he was discharged from service by the appellant on May 15, 1958. The union of the appellants employees took up this discharge and raised an industrial dispute about it. It was urged by the Union that the discharge of Mr. Sarkars services was illegal and that he was entitled to reinstatement and/or compensation. This dispute was referred by the Government of West Bengal for adjudication to the second Labour Court on September 25, 1958. By its award pronounced on December 8, 1959, the Labour Court has directed the appellant to reinstate Mr. Sarkar and pay him his emoluments for the period of his forced unemployment. It appears that on January 27, 1959, the appellant had paid some moneys to Mr. Sarkar, and so, the award directs that in paying emoluments to Mr. Sarkar under the provisions of the award, adjustments should be made in respect of the amounts already paid by the appellant to him. It is against this award that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave.2. The facts leading to the present industrial dispute between the parties are not many and can be very briefly stated at the outset. It appears that on December 16, 1957, Mr. Shibdas Bhattacharjee who was the Chief Reporter of the Ananda Bazar Patrika, proceeded on leave. Before going leave, Mr. Bhattacharjee appointed Mr. Madhusudan Chakravarty to work as Chief Reporter temporarily during his absence. Accordingly, he wrote a letter to that effect and sent its copies to the Editor of the Ananda Bazar Patrika, to the News Editor of the said Paper to the Chief Accountant and to the Reporting Department. The letter was addressed to the Managing Director of the Ananda Bazar Patrika, and a copy of it was hung on the notice Board of the Reporting Section of the Ananda Bazar Patrika.

Reasoning:
9. In the present case, the Labour Court appears to have taken the view that the enquiry was not fair and had not been conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. Having reached this conclusion, the Tribunal proceeded to consider the merits of the controversy between the parties and has recorded its findings after appreciating the evidence led before it by the respective parties is support of their contentions. It has held that Mr. Sarkar was not justified in hanging up his letter on the Notice Board, but it took the view that the management should not have taken action against him in view of the fact that Mr. Sarkar had removed the letter as soon as he learnt that the management took exception to his conduct. According to the Labour Court, Mr. Bhattacharjee was not authorised to appoint Mr. Chakravarty as the Acting Chief Reporter during his period of absence on leave, and so, it thought that Mr. Chakravarty was not clothed with lawful authority to allot assignment to Mr. Sarkar during Mr. Bhattacharjee absence. In regard to the question that Mr. Sarkar had decided his own assignments, the Labour Court was not satisfied with the whole of story deposed to by the appellants witnesses and in any event, it held that the explanation given by Mr. Sarkar in that behalf was not unreasonable. It is on these findings that the order of reinstatement has been passed by the Labour Court in favour of Mr.we do not think in refusing Mr. Sarkars request to examine the Editor, the enquiry officer can be said to have acted capriciously or mala fide. He seems to have thought honestly that the said witness would not be material or relevant. That being so, we do not think that this circumstance can render the enquirywe have no doubt that the ground given by the Labour Court that the failure to consult the Editor made the conduct of the management mala fide, is whollywe do not think that even on the merits, Mr. Chatterjee is right in contending that the refusal of Mr. Basu to examine the Editor of the Paper was unjustified, much less can it be said to be perverse or malicious so as to sustain the contention that the enquiry held by the said officer without examining the Editor is unfair and has contravened the rules of natural justice.20. Mr. Chatterjee no doubt urged before us the fact that Mr. Sarkar has long and meritorious service to his credit in this institution, and he told us that he taken part in the national movement and had adopted the career of journalism out of patriotic and national feelings. He, therefore, appeals to us to consider whether the appellant should be asked to reinstate him in its employment. When this aspect of the matter was put to Mr. Sastri who appeared for the appellant, Mr. Sastri told us after consulting his client that having regard to the nature of the misconduct which has been held proved against Mr. Sarkar, the appellant was not inclined to take him back.