Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) Two orders are under challenge in the present writ petition, one is dated October 25, 2010 and the other is dated July 2, 2014.
(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the authorities are bound by an award entered into between the employer and the employee. The first respondent as an Article 12 authority cannot change the terms of such award unilaterally. By the two impugned orders, the first respondent has sought to do so. Such actions of the respondents are arbitrary. The petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing before their rights being affected by the impugned order. Fundamental right of the petitioner stands affected as the right to livelihood stands affected by the impugned order. Condition of service stands altered by the impugned order without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Moreover none of the impugned orders are informed with reasons. Therefore the writ is maintainable. He relies upon All India Reporter 1980 Supreme Court 2181 (Life Insurance Corporation of India v. D.J. Bahadur and Ors. ) in support of his contentions.
(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the respondent submits that, the disputes raised by the petitioner are covered under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy available to itself. There is no arbitrariness involved in the two impugned orders. Assuming the same to be so, it is for the designated authority to look into the same as disputed questions of facts are involved. The Writ Court has to return a finding of fact as to whether the authority has acted in violation of the existing award to say that the impugned orders are arbitrary and are in violation of the award. Such exercise will involve evidence to be taken. The Writ Court should not enter such arena. Moreover the impugned orders were challenged after five years from the date of passing of the same without any explanation as to the delay being given in the Writ Court. He submits that, the Court should take notice of the fact that, where a change in situation arise, it is open to the employer to act in terms with such changed situation. The impugned orders have been passed in order to provide for the change in situation.;