JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J. - (1.) W .P. No. 18341 (W) of 2005 was taken out by the deceased workman for enforcing an order of the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal dated May 20th, 2005: In the course of hearing thereof, W.P. No. 2315 of 2005 filed on the original side of this Court by the employer, partly questioning that order of the tribunal, has been assigned to me. Hence I have heard both the writ petitions together, and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) SINCE the writ petition itself is being finally disposed of no separate order in CAN No. 5252 of 2007 is necessary, and hence it shall be deemed to be disposed of. The application for substitution taken out by the petitioners in W.P. No. 2315 of 2005. It is submitted that it is in form and within time, is hereby allowed and the department concerned of this Court is directed to amend the cause papers within a fortnight from the date records of the case are sent down from the Court. The workman was working in the West Bengal State Electricity Board as an Assistant (Cash). Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing a charge -sheet dated May 31st, 1997. It was alleged that he had defalcated a sum of Rs. 60,000/ - from the cash collection. An inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer appointed by the disciplinary authority. Before the inquiry officer the workman allegedly confessed that he had defalcated a sum of Rs. 60,000/ - as alleged in the charge -sheet. After considering the report of the inquiry officer and giving the workman an opportunity of making representation against the proposed punishment, the disciplinary authority made the final order dated April 11th, 2000 dismissing him from service and ordering recovery of Rs. 60,000/ - from his terminal benefits. In the order the disciplinary authority, however, recorded that since an industrial dispute in which the workman was concerned was pending before the Third Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata, an application had been filed seeking approval in terms of the provisions in Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Such application was filed also on April 11th, 2000; needless to say that one month's wages had been duly paid to the workman. By an order dated May 11th, 2001 the tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the employer was not valid. Feeling aggrieved, the employer moved this Court by filing a writ petition, and during its pendency, on September 16th, 2002, it filed an application before the tribunal seeking leave to withdraw the Section 33(2)(b) application. By an order dated September 27th, 2002 the writ petition was dismissed. On October 3rd, 2002 the tribunal made an order permitting the employer to withdraw the Section 33(2)(b) application. Then by a letter dated October 5th, 2002 the workman called upon the employer to reinstate him with full back wages. Since the employer rejected his request by a letter dated March 3rd, 2003, he moved this Court by filing a writ petition, which was disposed of by an order dated September 22nd, 2004 setting aside the order of the tribunal dated October 3rd, 2002 and directing it to hear the withdrawal application once again. The tribunal then heard the parties, recorded evidence, and made the order dated May 20th, 2005.
(3.) THE workman took out his writ petition for a mandamus directing his employer to reinstate him with full back wages. He contended that once the Section 33(2)(b) supplication was withdrawn by his employer, he was to be deemed to be in continuous service, since the termination order dated April 11th, 2000 was to be treated as void and inoperative. His employer took out its writ petition feeling aggrieved by the order of the tribunal directing it to pay compensation at the rate of last drawn salary from April 11th, 2000 to May 20th, 2005.;