MAHABIR PRASAD CHOUDHURY Vs. OCTAVIUS TEA AND INDUSTRIES LTD

LAWS(CAL)-2009-12-45

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

Decided on December 23,2009

MAHABIR PROSAD CHOUDHURY Appellant

VERSUS

OCTAVIUS TEA AND INDUSTRIES LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. - (1.) Backdrop: 1.1 The appellant was a permanent employee of the respondent No. 1. He was terminated from service with effect from May 2, 2005. There had been a change of management in the year 2004. However, the employer assured the employees that the service conditions of the employees of the respondent No. 1 would not be affected by such change. Appellant raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Commissioner which was ultimately referred to the Tribunal to decide as to whether refusal of employment to the appellant by the management with effect from May 2, 2005 was justified. According to the appellant, the Tribunal issued necessary order for service of notice upon the respondent company and notice was served through process server. The respondent No. 1 however denied such assertion as according to them, they were never served with any notice of such reference being pending before the Tribunal. 1.2 The Tribunal passed an ex parte award directing reinstatement of the appellant with full back wages. When the appellant insisted on his re- instatement on the strength of the award the company made an application before the Tribunal inter alia, praying for setting aside of the ex parte award on the ground that no notice was served upon the respondent company. The Tribunal upon hearing the rival contentions rejected the said application vide order dated September 30, 2008 appearing at pages 114-120 of the application for stay which was treated as paper book pursuant to the order of the Division Bench passed earlier. 1.3 The Tribunal was of the view that it did not have competence to recall and/or set aside the award as they became functus officio after expiry of thirty days from the date of publication of the award. The Tribunal, however, before making such order, observed that notice was not served upon the respondent No. 1.
(2.) Writ Proceeding : Being aggrieved, the respondent No.1 approached the learned Single Judge by filing the writ petition when His Lordship allowed the writ petition and set aside the award and revived the order of reference with a direction upon the Tribunal to hear the parties afresh.
(3.) This Appeal : Being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the appellant preferred the instant appeal. We heard the parties at length.;

Click here to view full judgement.