Novartis India Ltd vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

3. Appellant herein is a successor in interest of a company known as Sandoz (India) Limited. Respondents were appointed as Sales Representatives by the said Santoz (India) Limited. Indisputably in terms of offers of appointment they could be transferred from one place to another.

In October, 1994 respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were transferred to Siwan, Karimganj and Farrukabad respectively. They were allegedly relieved from their duties and were directed to report at the transferred places on or about 17th October, 1994. They filed their representations requesting for withdrawal/ cancellation of their respective orders of transfer.

6. The company, however, asked the respondents to report for duties at their respective transferred places. Reminders were sent by the company to respondent Nos. 2 and 4 on 1st April, 1995 while to respondent No.3 on 31st March, 1995. As the respondents did not join at their transferred places, they were discharged from services by orders dated 15th April, 1995, stating:_ "Note that as you have failed to honour adhere to and comply with the contractual obligations on your part, we are left with no alternative but to 4 determine your contract of employment which we hereby do with immediate effect, with one month pay in lieu of notice. The notice pay for a sum of Rs.7311/- (Rupees seven thousand three hundred and eleven only) by a Demand Draft No.736343 dated 14.04.95 is being sent herewith as a part of the same transaction.

7. It is, however, not in dispute that in the meantime respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had approached the Regional Labour Commissioner for conciliation. The Company refused to participate therein.

Questioning the said orders of termination respondent Nos. 2 to 4 raised an industrial dispute. The Government of West Bengal by an order dated 12th June, 1997 referred the said dispute for determination by the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, the terms whereof read as under :-

8. The company filed its written statement before the Industrial Tribunal inter alia questioning its jurisdiction. A preliminary issue was raised as regards the maintainability of the reference on the ground that the dispute, if any, could have been raised only at the transferred locations and the appropriate State Governments where respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have been transferred only had the jurisdiction to refer the alleged dispute. By an order dated 30th March, 1999 the said preliminary objection was rejected. The Industrial Tribunal made an award on 10th October, 2002 holding that since no domestic inquiry was conducted before passing the orders of termination, the same were bad in law. It was observed that since the said respondents had superannuated in the meantime, the question of directing their reinstatement did not arise. It however, held that the said respondents were entitled to back wages from the date of termination till the date of attaining their normal superannuation. However, it was directed that the back wages should be calculated on the basis of the last pay drawn.

15. Indisputably when an industrial dispute was raised, the company refused to participate in the conciliation proceedings before the conciliation officer on 12th April, 1995, the date fixed therefor Allegedly only upon receipt of notice of the conciliation proceeding, the services of respondents 2 to 4 were terminated.

"18. Yet again the appellants being workmen, their services were protected in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. If their services were protected, an order of termination was required to be communicated. Communication of an order of termination itself may give rise to a cause of action. An order of termination takes effect from the date of communication of the said order."

M. Chandrappa and Kirtiben B. Amin v. Mafatlal Apparels7)

42. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment warrants no interference. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.50,000/-.

December 02, 2008