M.K. Mukherjee, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who was a driver of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation ('Corporation' for short), was dismissed from his services on September 19, 1973 for having met with an accident while driving a vehicle of the Corporation. Over the dismissal, an industrial dispute was raised which was referred to the Second Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal for adjudication. By its award dated January 31, 1985, the Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal and directed the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner without any delay and to make payment of all his arrears within a month from the date of receipt of the award. By a letter dated March 18, 1985, the petitioner asked the Managing Director of the Corporation to implement the sward but the Corporation did not allow him to join nor. pay his arrears. The petitioner, thereafter issued two reminders on 8/4/85 and 13/5/85 which went unheeded. Then on 28/5/85, he wrote another letter to the Man aging Director of the Corporation with an offer that if he was reinstated by the first week of June, 1935 in the post of Vehicle Inspector, and paid full wages from the date of the award, he was prepared to accept 60% of his wages for the period of his unemployment. He pointed out that his offer was valid till June 7, 1985. In reply thereto, the Managing Director intimated the petitioner, by his letter dated 31/8/85 that the Corp rati on was willing to reinstate him in service without any prejudice to its rights and contentions in the matter on payment of 40% back wages and if he was agreeable to the offer, he could send his consent letter. The petitioner wrote back on March 4, 1986, stating that as he was helpless and was in an acute financial distress, he had no other alternative but to accept the offer made by the Corporation to save his family from starvation. Thereafter, the Corporation issued an order on May 12, 1986, reinstating him in service as a driver and undertaking to give him 40% of the back wages he was entitled to in terms of the award. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner joined his duties and thereafter got a promo ton to the post of Vehicle Inspector with effect from September 5, 1986. While working in that capacity, he was served with an order dated April 13, 1987, whereby he was informed that he would retire on superannuation on and from December 1, 1937. This was followed by another Memorandum dated May 7, 1987, wherein it was stated that according to his date of birth as appearing in the records, he should have retired on superannuation with effect from 28/2/86 and that necessarily meant that he had rendered excess period of service. He was, therefore, in armed that he would retire from cervices of the Corporation with effect from 8/5/77 and not from 1/12/87 as was mentioned in the earlier Memorandum. Aggrieved by the above Memorandum, the petitioner moved a writ petition which was disposed of by this Court on August 29, 1988 with a direction upon the Corporation to treat the petitioner as on service upto November 30, 1987 and to pay him all benefits accordingly. Thereafter, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Managing Director of the Corporation calling upon him to pay him the balance 60% of his back wages together with the benefits of selection grade and scale of pay and also the new intermediate selection grade under the ROPA Rules, 1981. As the claim of the petitioner was not entertained, he filed this writ petition.
(2.) In contesting the claim of the petitioner, the Corporation has contended that he was already been paid all his service and re tired benefits in terms of the Corporation Ruler, and in terms of his letter by which he agreed to be reinstated with 40% of his back wages. Accordingly, the Corporation has prayed for rejection of the writ petition with exemplary costs.
(3.) The facts detailed above unmistakably arid markedly demonstrate how a Government undertaking, in titter disregard of the law of the land, has unabashedly exploited the plight of a helpless employee. Under Sec. 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act ('Act' for short), the award passed in favour of the petitioner became enforceable on and from 5/4/85 as admittedly it was published in the official gazette on 5/3/85. Consequent thereupon, the Corporation became statutorily obligated to implement the same in pain of prosecution and penalty under Sec. 29 of the Act. In the fitness of things, it was expected therefore that the Corporation would fulfill its statutory obligations - if it was oblivious of its social and economic obligations as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India without being told by the petitioner to do so. Regrettably, however, the expectation was belied, and even reminders of the petitioner failed to evoke any response and the Corporation sat tight over the matter until the petitioner, forced by penury - the inevitable of 12 years' unemployment - agreed to forgo a part of his legal and legitimate claim. Even this genuflexion of the petitioner was not gracefully acknowledged by the Corporation as would be evident from the fact that the offer of the petitioner was farther pruned down and after a lapse of 1 year, he was given an appointment on its dictated terms and on his signing on the dotted lines.;