DIMBESWAR GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The management of Ajir Asom (Dainik) Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.4) is represented by the learned advocate Mr. L.P. Sharma. The respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 are represented by Mr. J. Handique, the learned Govt. advocate.

(2.) The petitioner was employed as a proof reader in the office of the Ajir Asom (Dainik) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Ajir Asom") but his service was terminated on 31.10.2002. In the resultant industrial dispute the conciliation officer furnished his failure report on 26.12.2003 (Annexure-6) and thus the following reference was framed by the Government on 24.05.2004, for consideration by the Industrial Tribunal:-

(3.) According to the workman, he was appointed on 17.10.1994 as proof reader in Ajir Asom, but as per the verbal instruction of the management, he was made to serve in the group newspaper "The Sentinel", in the same office building. On the charge of misappropriation of Rs.140/- from the payment of Rs.300/- made by Mr. Pradip Kr. Deka for inserting an advertisement in the Sentinel newspaper, the explanation of the workman was that additional amount was given by Mr. Deka to courier the newspaper to Ahemdabad where Mr. Deka is employed as the Manager of the Ashima Textiles. The workman produced the clarificatory letter of 17.06.2002 (Exbt.-4) written by the advertiser himself, who stated that the workman had not overcharged him, but he was paid Rs.300/- which included both the advertisement and courier charges. Accordingly the workman contended that since the advertiser himself clarified the extra payment as courier charge, the case of misappropriation of Rs.140/- is not made out and thus the penal action against the workman on charge of misappropriation is challenged. The further case of the workman is that he was employed by Ajir Asom since many years before the contract agreement was executed on 01.02.2002 and therefore it is argued that the long service employee can't be terminated without following due process and without payment of his GPF and ESI dues, deducted from the workman's salary since 1997-98.