DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) Two orders passed by the concerned Labour Court dated June 5, 2006 and April 17, 2012 are under challenge in the present writ petition at the behest of a dismissed employee.
(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner suffered a departmental proceedings under which she was dismissed from service. She approached the concerned Labour Court for redressal. Issues were framed in such proceedings. However, by the impugned order dated June 5, 2006, a nil award was passed on the ground that, the petitioner was absent on repeated calls. The petitioner thereafter applied for recalling of such award. The same was rejected by the impugned order dated April 17, 2012. He relies upon 1977(34) FLR 235 (Cox and Kings (Agents) Ltd. v. Their Workmen and Ors.), and submits that, the concerned Labour Court ought to have recalled the nil award dated June 5, 2006 and ought to have decided the proceedings on merits.
(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the respondents draws the attention of the Court to 1998(1) CHN 266 (Raniganj Chemicals Works Majdoor Sangh and Anr. v. Ranijanj Chemicals Works and Ors.), and submits that, the Division Bench, is of contrary view than that of Cox and Kings (Agents) Ltd. (supra). In his usual fairness, he points out that Cox and Kings (Agents) Ltd. (supra) was not cited before the Division Bench rendering Raniganj Chemicals Works Majdoor Sangh (supra). He draws the attention of the Court to the averments made in the writ petition at paragraphs 30 to 32 thereof and submits that, the petitioner did not approach his advocate during the relevant time. Therefore, the concerned Labour Court was not wrong in passing a nil award on June 5, 2006 and refusing to recall the same subsequently.;