Indian Express Newspaper v. State of WB 

Citation	2005(1)CHN390, (2005)IILLJ333CAL
Court	Calcutta High court
Decided on	23 September 2004
Petitioner	India express newspaper
Respondent	State of West Bengal

Introduction 

In Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (2005), the High Court of Calcutta addressed a jurisdictional dispute concerning which state government had authority to refer an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case involved Mr. B.G. Sampat, an employee who was transferred from Calcutta to Bombay but refused to comply with the transfer order. After his subsequent termination, Sampat raised an industrial dispute in West Bengal. The central question was whether West Bengal was the “appropriate Government” to make the reference under Section 2(a)(ii) of the Act, or whether Maharashtra had jurisdiction. The court ultimately held that despite Sampat receiving his termination notice in Calcutta, both his “situs of employment” and administrative control had shifted to Bombay following the transfer order. Therefore, the court ruled that Maharashtra, not West Bengal, was the appropriate government for referring the dispute, rendering the West Bengal government’s reference without jurisdiction.

Facts of the case 

1. Mr. B.G. Sampat was an employee of Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and was posted in Calcutta.

2. On August 1, 1988, Sampat was served with a transfer order from the Bombay office transferring him from Calcutta to Bombay with effect from August 5, 1988.

3. Sampat did not comply with the transfer order and instead made several representations to the Bombay office requesting reconsideration on grounds of hardship. His requests were rejected.

4. On November 22, 1988, Sampat was issued a show-cause notice regarding his conviction by the 11th Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta in a case related to gambling in a public street.

5. Sampat’s reply to the show-cause notice was found unsatisfactory, and he was served with a chargesheet dated November 6, 1989, issued by the Newspaper company proposing to hold an enquiry at Bombay.

6. The chargesheet contained two charges: (a) Sampat’s failure to comply with the transfer order, and (b) his conviction in the criminal case for gambling.

7. Sampat did not participate in the domestic enquiry at Bombay, so it was conducted ex parte. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges against Sampat were proved.

8. The Disciplinary Authority proposed to terminate Sampat’s service and asked him to show cause why the proposed punishment should not be imposed.

9. Despite Sampat’s response, the Disciplinary Authority terminated his service and informed him by letter dated November 9, 1990.

10. Sampat raised an industrial dispute, resulting in an order of reference by the Government of West Bengal dated January 13, 1992, following the failure of conciliation proceedings.

11. The case went through several legal proceedings, including applications for interim relief and writ petitions concerning the jurisdiction of the West Bengal government to make the reference.

12. The central legal issue became whether the State of West Bengal was the “appropriate Government” to make a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act regarding Sampat’s termination, or whether the Government of Maharashtra had jurisdiction.

Arguments by the parties 

Arguments by Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd.

1. On Appropriate Government:

   – The appropriate government issue depends on three tests: (a) situs of employment, (b) administrative control over the employee, and (c) cause of action.

   – Based on Sections 2(a)(i) and (ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, legislative intent indicates that control over the employee should be the guiding factor in determining which government is the appropriate one.

2. Control and Management: 

   – Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Lipton Limited v. Their Employees  the appellant argued that all aspects of Sampat’s employment (salary, leave, transfer, supervision) were controlled from the Bombay office.

   – The Bombay office maintained the Salary Register for outside stationed staff, including Sampat (listed as serial number 64).

   – All relevant actions relating to Sampat’s salary, sick leave, tax deductions were directed from Bombay.

3. Situs of Employment: 

   – Although Sampat was stationed in Calcutta, his situs of employment shifted to Bombay after the transfer order.

   – The transfer order was never legally challenged by Sampat, making Bombay his legal place of employment.

   – Cited the Full Bench decision of Patna High Court in *Paritosh Kumar Pal v. State of Bihar* which outlined principles for determining jurisdiction based on where termination operates.

4. Procedural Arguments:

   – The Single Judge had not properly applied his mind to the jurisdiction question.

   – The approach in deciding the jurisdiction question after the Division Bench’s direction was perfunctory and not based on deeper consideration as directed.

Arguments by Mr. B.G. Sampat (appearing in person)

1. On Jurisdiction:

   – Relied on the Single Judge’s judgment in W.P. No. 116 of 1998, which had held that West Bengal had jurisdiction.

   – At the time of the transfer order, he was posted in Calcutta, and the effect of the order was felt in Calcutta.

2. Legal Precedents: 

   – Cited Supreme Court’s decision in *Workmen of Shri Ranga Vilas Motors (P) Ltd.* which held that there should be nexus between the dispute and territory of the State.

   – Also relied on a Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in *Umasankar Chatterjee v. Union of India* which held that an order of removal that becomes effective where it is received creates cause of action at that place.

3. On Merits of Termination:

   – The original show-cause notice (November 22, 1988) only mentioned his gambling conviction, but the subsequent chargesheet (November 6, 1989) included failure to report to Bombay.

   – He had made several representations against the transfer order, which establishes that he was posted in Calcutta.

   – His salary was paid from the Calcutta office and he received directions from there regarding his duties.

Arguments by the State of West Bengal

1. On Employment Status:

   – Supported Sampat’s case that he was stationed at Calcutta.

   – Although under ultimate control of Bombay head office, his activities in Calcutta were controlled by the branch office there.

2. On Salary and Control:

   – Sampat’s salary was paid by the Calcutta Branch office (albeit on instructions from Bombay).

3. Legal Support:

   – Supported the precedents cited by Sampat regarding territorial jurisdiction.

   – Argued that *Lipton case* relied solely on “control” theory without considering situs of employment and cause of action.

   – The effect of termination was felt in Calcutta, creating the necessary nexus between the dispute and West Bengal territory.

Judgment of the case 

The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal filed by Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., setting aside both the award of the Industrial Tribunal and the judgment of the Single Judge. The Court held that the State of West Bengal was not the “appropriate Government” under Section 2(a)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act to make a reference regarding Sampat’s termination dispute. Although Sampat was served with the termination order in Calcutta, the Court found that after the transfer order dated August 1, 1988, his situs of employment had shifted to Bombay, and the Bombay office exercised administrative control over him. The Court reasoned that Sampat’s presence in Calcutta was merely because he chose not to comply with the valid transfer order, which he never legally challenged. Applying the established tests of “control” and “situs of employment,” the Court concluded that the Government of Maharashtra, not West Bengal, would have been the appropriate authority to refer Sampat’s dispute, thus rendering the reference by the West Bengal Government without jurisdiction.