Tapan Mukherjee, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 538 of 1996. The respondent No. 2 was previously employed by the appellant-writ petitioner in its' factory on 31st May 1967 and he absented himself from his duty from 18.11.1981 without any permission. On 9.1.1982 his service was terminated. According to the petitioner such termination was done in accordance with cause-18 of the Standing Order and the settlement which was entered into by and between management and the union. Respondent No. 2 did not challenge the said termination. To the contrary, he took all his outstanding dues except his retirement benefit which were offered to him. Over the year after such termination he submitted an application do 4.3.1983 and offer of new employment was given to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 through a letter dated 30.4.1983 and in such letter it was made clear that he was being offered fresh employment a grade-1 staff on condition that he would never arise any dispute regarding his past service and respondent No. 2 accepted the said offer and a formal order of appointment was issued and the respondent No. 2 joined his new appointment and continued to work in his new employment without protest. He was confirmed therein and then in the year 1989 respondent No. 2 by a letter dated 28.8.1989 alleged that his employment was terminated from 9.1.1982 without following principles of natural justice and he was deprived of his seniority and suffered monetary loss. The dispute, which was not an industrial dispute according to the petitioner was referred for conciliation proceedings and thereafter reference was made before the tribunal for adjudication of the following issues : i) Whether the company is justified in demoting Shri Subhas Chandra Das (respondent No. 2), ii) Whether the company is justified in denying the benefits of past service from 30th May 1967 to 8th January 1982 to Shri Subhas Chandra Das (respondent No. 2), iii) To what relief workman is entitled. Then the Tribunal passed an award. The Tribunal held that automatic discharge of the respondent No. 2 was an unfair labour practice and the Tribunal further held that the job of the concerned workman from 31.5.67 to 5.1.82 for a period of about 15 years had got to be considered and tagged with the present service. After tagging both the jobs he should be given all financial benefits including seniority. The gap between 9.1.82 to 1.5.83 had got to be treated as on duty without pay.
(2.) Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the appellant Dunlop India Limited moved this Court in writ jurisdiction and Learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated. 8.10.2002 held that the Learned Tribunal had rightly dealt with the matter and came to the conclusion and passed the award and there was no reason to interfere with the said award passed by the said learned Tribunal and dismissed the writ application.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge the writ petitioner-appellant preferred this appeal.;