Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kartick Chandra Biswas vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 19 June, 2012
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
1
9.06.2012.
W.P. No. 515 (W) of 2010
Kartick Chandra Biswas
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Md. Yasin Ali,
Mr. Dipankar Mondal.
...For the petitioner.
Mr. D. K. Chatterjee,
Mr. Manojit Pal.
...For the State.
The petitioner was an employee of Calcutta State Transport Corporation. The
petitioner was wrongfully terminated from service on 10.10.1975.
By order dated 28.11.1977 the learned Judge, First Industrial Tribunal refused to
approve the order of dismissal. On 6.1.1997 the First Labour Court directed the
Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.2,57,000/‐ as back wages from April 1975 to December
1988.
It is significant to note in the said order dated 6.1.1997 the First Labour Court
observed that the dismissal being unlawful, the petitioner was to be treated in continuous
service. Subsequently, by a memorandum of settlement dated 13.10.1998 the petitioner
received a sum of Rs.1,70,000/‐ in full and final settlement of the aforesaid award.
Thereafter the petitioner made several representations claiming himself to be in
continuous service and seeking his service benefits on such score.
2
It appears that by a representation dated 16.5.2001 the petitioner claimed that he
was in continuous service upto 1989 when he had been granted voluntary retirement, and
the petitioner, in the said representation, claimed his service benefits till such date. Such
prayers at the behest of the petitioner were considered and disposed of by respondent
no.4 who by impugned order dated 15.1.2003 held that the petitioner was removed from service with effect from 10.10.1975 and was not entitled to any service and/or terminal benefits. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has, inter alia, challenged the said order dated 15.1.2003 and prayed for his service and/or retiral benefits by holding that he was in continuous service till the date of his superannuation according to his service records.
Mr. Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was contrary to law inasmuch as, the dismissal of the petitioner had not been approved by the Tribunal and was void in law and, hence, the petitioner was to be held to be in continuous service till the date of his superannuation according to his service records. In support of such contention Mr. Ali relied on a Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 643 and another decision of the Apex Court in A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 2309.
Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that the contention of Mr. Ali is contrary to the stance taken by the petitioner in his representation dated May 16, 2001 being Annexure - P/4 to this writ petition wherein he had categorically stated that he 3 had voluntarily retired from service in 1989. The learned counsel, however, admits that the dismissal of the petitioner had not been approved by the Labour Tribunal.
In view of the aforesaid rival contentions, I find that in the light of the decisions cited by Mr. Ali and also in terms of the observation made by the First Labour Court in its award dated 6.1.1997, there is no escape of the conclusion that the petitioner was in continuous service in view of the fact that the order of dismissal of the petitioner was not approved by the Labour Tribunal and was therefore void in law.
However, it appears that the petitioner has sought to make out a new case in the writ petition that he was in continuous service till his date of retirement according to his service records while in the representation being Annexure - P/4 thereto, he stated that he had voluntarily retired from such service in 1989.
In this backdrop I requested the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation to take instructions as to whether the Corporation is agreeable to accept the petitioner to be in continuous service till the date of his voluntary retirement. Learned counsel, upon instruction, submits that the Corporation is ready and willing to accept that the petitioner was in continuous service till the date of his voluntary retirement in 1989 as appearing in the said representation dated 15.6.2001 being Annexure - P/4 to the writ petition.
In view of the aforesaid fact, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 15.1.2003 passed by the respondent no.4 wherein the petitioner has been held to have been 4 removed from service in 1975 cannot stand. I accordingly set aside the order dated January 15, 2003.
I dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent no.2 herein to forthwith release the service benefits and/or retiral benefits due and payable to the petitioner in accordance with law by treating him to be in continuous service till 1989. The amount so due and payable to the petitioner shall be computed and the same be released to him within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.
With the aforesaid directions, the instant writ petition is disposed of. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.
( Joymalya Bagchi, J. )