SUR D K Vs. TATA IRON AND STEEL CO LTD
LAWS(CAL)-1996-6-2
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on June 11,1996

D.K.SUR Appellant
VERSUS
TATA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. V. RAM RATAN MAHATO [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. KRISHNA KANT [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

D.P.Kundu, J. - (1.)The writ petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Superintendent for tool room in the TISCO Maintenance Shop, Adityapur complex under the Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. In paragraph 6 of the Writ petition it has been stated that one of the terms of letter of appointment was that the service of the Writ petitioner would be governed by the Standing Orders and the said Standing Orders had been framed under the Industrial" Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the said Standing Orders had been duly certified by the certifying officer in accordance with the provisions contained in the aforesaid Act of 1946 and the rules framed thereunder. In paragraph 13 of the Writ petition the Writ petitioner stated that by and under Memo No. AC 2525 dated November 11, 1.983 the manager of TISCO, Adityapur Complex, recorded that the Writ petitioner joined the service on November 11, 1983. It is case of the Writ petitioner that the Writ petitioner was appointed to a permanent vacancy with effect from November 11, 1983. The Writ petitioner further sated that he was given a Flat No. A/20 which the Writ petitioner occupied on December 15, 1983. Subsequently he was given Flat No. A/31, in place of Flat No. A/20. It is the case of the Writ petitioner that the Writ petitioner is still in occupation of the said Flat No. A/31. The Writ petitioner stated that he was redesignated as junior manager with pay scale of RAO-3 with effect from June 1,1985. The Writ petitioner alleged that this redesignation was made as appreciation of efficient performance of works by the Writ petitioner. The Writ petitioner stated that the Writ petitioner's perfomance was highly appreciated by the Chairman and Managing Director of TISCO. Mr. Russi Modi by a letter dated December 25, 1983 fixed the emoluments of the Writ petitioner separately. It is the case of the Writ petitioner that the work of the Writ petitioner was appreciated and he was awarded special emolument. The Writ petitioner stated that by and under a memo dated March 30, 1983 the Senior Additional Manager redesignated the Writ petitioner as Assistant Manager. By virtue of a memo dated November 1, 1991 issued by the Executive Director (operations) the Writ petitioner was redesignated as Manager in Officer Level 01. Ultimately by virtue of memo No. AC333.94/93 dated November 6, 1993 issued by the General Manager (Engineering) the Writ petitioner was informed that his service was no longer required by the company and was therefore terminated with immediate effect. The Writ petitioner was further intimated that the salary till December 31, 1993 in lieu of notice pay along with 5 months' wages as compensation at the rate of 15 days' wages for every completed year of service was being remitted to the Writ petitioner's account in the bank. For the final settlement of dues the Writ petitioner was advised to meet General Manager (Finance and Accounts) on any working day during working hours.
(2.)The Writ petitioner in this Writ application has called in question termination of his service and has prayed for the following reliefs :
(a) A Writ of or in the nature of certiorari calling upon the Respondents to produce or cause to produce to Registrar, appellate Side, of this Hon'ble Court, papers, records and documents relating to and/or arising out of termination of service of the petitioner so that conscionable justice may be done by quashing the same ; (b) For a Writ of or in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents to cancel/withdraw/rescind the Memo of termination of service of the petitioner and to forbear them, their agents, subordinates from giving effect to or further effect to the said Memo of termination of service of the petitioner ; (c) For a declaration that the petitioner is in service and has been doing his duties as if the petitioner's service has not been terminated ; (d) For a Writ of or in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents to pay to the petitioner full back wages, salaries and other monetary benefits and service benefits holding as if the petitioner is in service and has been doing his duty disregarding the termination of service of the petitioner. For interim order directing the Respondents to pay to the petitioners lump sum amount for his maintenance with the family ; (f) For an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from, disturbing the possession of the Flat No.A/31 which is in occupation of the petitioner till the disposal of the Rule. (g) Rule in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d)above ; (h) Interim order in terms of prayer (e) and (f) above ; (i) To make the Rule absolute, if the Respondents fail to show sufficient cause or return ; (j) To pass such other or further order or orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper ; (k) Costs of, and incidental to, this petition,

(3.)Respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition controverting allegations made against them. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter involved in the Writ proceedings because no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The second submission of the learned Advocate for the respondents was that this Court cannot pass any order directing reinstatement of the Writ petitioner in the service. It was further submitted by the respondents that there was no violation of the provisions of the Standing Order by the respondents while terminating the service of the Writ petitioner. The Learned Advocate appearing for the Writ petitioner argued that this Court has territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter involved in the Writ proceeding. It was also argued on behalf of the Writ petitioner that this Court can pass an order directing reinstatement of the Writ petitioner in the service. It was also argued on behalf of the Writ petitioner that provisions of Standing Order guiding the service conditon of the Writ petitioner have been breached. Large number of decisions were cited in support of the submissions that this Court has territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter involved in this proceeding, it is not necessary to refer to those decisions because this Court assumes that this Court has territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter involved in this proceedings.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.