S. B. Sinha, J. - (1.) The workman is in appeal before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 13-10-2000 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in Appeal No. 434 of 1996.
(2.) The case at hand has a chequered history. The appellant herein was appointed in the post of Messenger-cum-Bearer in the establishment of the respondent herein, a Cinema House, on 31-3-1978. He was subsequently confirmed on the said post. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him wherein he was found guilty, whereupon he was dismissed from services. The said order of dismissal was the subject-matter of an industrial dispute. The Industrial Tribunal by reason of an award set aside the said order of dismissal with full back-wages and compensation. On or about 1-5-1991, the appellant was permitted to join his duties but back-wages were not paid. He was, however, retrenched from services within one month from his joining i.e. 30-5-1991. A sum of Rs. 9,030/- was paid as retrenchment compensation which the appellant is said to have received under protest. A trade union known as Bengal Motion Pictures Employees Union took up the cause of the Appellant, inter alia, on the ground of contravention of the legal requirements as contained in Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as also insufficiency of the amount of compensation paid to the appellant in terms of Section 25-F(b) thereof. An industrial dispute as regard his retrenchment was raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner which failed; whereupon the Industrial Tribunal was approached by the Appellant. In the meanwhile, the appellant had also initiated a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which ended in an amicable settlement in terms whereof the Appellant allegedly agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 39,000/- as full and final settlement. He had accepted a cheque for the aforementioned sum of Rs. 9,030/- issued by the management allegedly as part payment of his compensation of Rs. 39,000/- which was deducted from the aforementioned settled amount of Rs. 39,000/-. The Industrial Tribunal by its order dated 28-12-1995 held : "Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in consideration of the evidence and record I hold that the retrenchment of the concerned workman was illegal and as such he should be deemed to be in continuous service with all benefits. The issues are answered accordingly."
(3.) A writ petition was filed by the respondent herein questioning the correctness or otherwise of the said award before the Calcutta High Court which was marked as Writ Petition No. 1872 of 1996. The said writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge, holding : "Thus, regarding (sic regard) being had the principles of law discussed above in the light of the fact and circumstances of the instant case, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned retrenchment was effected without complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 25-F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the Tribunal was well within its jurisdiction in recording a finding to that effect. Such a retrenchment must, accordingly, be held to be void ab initio and consequently, the respondent must be deemed to be in service and entitled to all consequential benefits. I, therefore, find no justification for quashing the impugned Award. In such view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the instant writ application fails. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed without, however, any order as to costs." ;