Debasish Kar Gupta, J.@mdashThis writ application is filed by the petitioner company for setting aside the order dated December 9, 2005 passed by the Learned 4th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal in case No.VIII-51/04.
2. The respondent No. 3 was a permanent employee of the petitioner company. By a communication dated December 4, 2002 the petitioner was transferred from the head office with effect from December 5, 2002. The respondent No. 3 approached the union alleging that the above order of transfer had been passed arbitrarily. The respondent No. 3 was placed under suspension with effect from January 3, 2003. Thereafter, the matter went for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal. Ultimately a proceeding was initiated before the Learned 4th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal in terms of the order of reference dated May 26, 2004.
3. The respondent No. 3 filed an application under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 before the Learned Tribunal for a direction upon the petitioner company for payment of interim relief. The Learned Tribunal by the impugned order dated December 9, 2005 allowed the above application of the respondent No. 3 directing the petitioner company to pay the interim relief to the respondent No. 3 from the date of filing the aforesaid application @ 50% for the first ninety days and thereafter @ 75% till the disposal of the reference case. The aforesaid order dated December 9, 2005 is under challenge in this writ application.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner company that the Learned Tribunal fails to apply its mind with regard to existence of a prima facie case. The burden of establishing the prima facie case was upon the respondent No. 3. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner company that it was obligatory on the part of the Learned Tribunal, prima facie, to consider the merit of the case as also the nature of dispute upon taking into consideration the relevant materials therefore. The attention of this Court is also drawn to the fact that finding of the enquiry officer was not under challenge before the learned Tribunal.
5. Reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioner on the decision of
6. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 3 that the respondent No. 3 was a permanent employee under the petitioner company. The dispute originated from the order of transfer. The petitioner company did not produce the relevant correspondences before the Learned Tribunal. The Learned Tribunal did not come to a conclusion that there was no merit in the case under reference so far as the respondent No. 3 was concerned. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be interfered with. Relying upon the decision of
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respective parties and after taking into considerations the materials on record I find that the Learned Tribunal, after taking into considerations the evidences which had been adduced before it in connection with the application filed by the respondent No. 3 for granting relief under Clause (B) of Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, came to conclusion that admittedly the dispute between the respondent No. 3 and the petitioner company had arisen just after transfer of the respondent No. 3 and several correspondences regarding this transfer were made in between the parties. The Learned Tribunal also observed that the questions whether the respondent No. 3 disobeyed the order of the company or whether there was any wilful negligence in the regular working of the respondent No. 3 creating labour unrest in the petitioner company and whether the workman had removed confidential documents from office file, were all matters to be considered at the time of hearing of the case on merit. Ultimately, the Learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the evidences adduced by both the parties before it did not indicate even that the petitioner company had been prima facie successful to prove its case for discharge or dismissal of the respondent No. 3. The Learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order also came to conclusion that no such situation had been cited before it for which it could be stated that the respondent No. 3 had no prima facie case at all to contest the case up to its final hearing.
8. From the aforesaid observations I find that the Learned Tribunal was of the view that there was a case which could be said to be established if the evidences which had been laid in support of the same were believed. It is a settled principle of law that while determining whether & prima facie case had been made out the relevant consideration is whether on the evidence laid, it was possible to arrive at the conclusion in question and not whether that was the only conclusion which could be arrived at on that evidence. In this regard the relevant portions of
The Labour Appellate Tribunal had to determine on these materials whether a prima facie case had been made out by the appellant for the termination of the respondent''s service. A prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt but a case which can be said to be established if the evidence which is led in support of the same were believed. While determining whether a prima facie case had been made out the relevant consideration is whether on the evidence led it was possible to arrive at the conclusion in question and not whether that was the only conclusion which could be arrived at on that evidence. It may be that the Tribunal considering this question may itself have arrived at a different conclusion. It has, however, not to substitute its own judgment for the judgment in question. It has only got to consider whether the view taken is a possible view on the evidence on the record See: (12)
9. I do not find that the Decision of B.G. Sampat v. State of West Bengal (supra) helps the petitioner company in any way. In that case the Court relied upon the decision of Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee (supra) to find out what would be a prima facie case. This Court finds that the impugned order does not require interference with applying the ratio laid down in the matter of Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee (supra). I do not find that the decision of Bhudar Chandra Pal v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (supra) helps the petitioner in any way. As discussed hereinabove the Learned Tribunal applied its mind taking into consideration the evidences to pass the impugned order.
10. In view of the observations made hereinabove, this writ application is dismissed.
11. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard.
