- (1.) Petitioner-workman in a bank has challenged award dated 27th February, 2008 made in reference no. 38 of 1999 (Employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India And Their workmen) pursuant to order of reference dated 29th September, 1999 made by Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d), sub section(1) of section 10 and section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1997. Issue referred is quoted below:- "Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, 33, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta -1 in dismissing Sh. Dulal Chandra Santra, Electrician of Brabourne Road Branch, Calcutta from the services on the charges of fraud is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"? (Emphasis supplied). Facts are, by memo dated 8th January, 1996, petitioner was discharged from bank's service without notice as per clause 19.6(e) of Bipartite Settlement dated 19th October, 1966. Memo says above punishment was inflicted on him with immediate effect. This had come about because petitioner was involved in an incident whereby Rs.9,500/-was withdrawn from a customer's account without authorisation. Petitioner had returned the money and disciplinary proceedings ended as above. Challenge in the writ petition was taken forward by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner, on submission that punishment was disproportionate. Court felt necessity of further assistance and had appointed Mr. Soumya Majumdar, learned advocate as Amicus Curiae. Amicus Curiae filed a note and made submission. Copy of this note was made over to respondent-bank by petitioner on such direction being made. This was necessitated since bank had stopped appearing. Court sees this continued absence as a conscious choice by the bank to go unrepresented. At this point, it would be relevant to quote text of order dated 20th December, 2018. "This writ petition has been listed under heading "For Orders"?. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and demonstrates compliance with direction made in order dated 11th December, 2018, by handing up copy of note filed by Amicus Curiae containing endorsement of receipt on 14th December, 2018 by learned advocate who earlier appeared on behalf of bank. Copy report is returned.
(2.) Bank goes unrepresented.
(3.) This writ petition is likely to be dealt with on adjourned date or whenever thereafter business of Court permits it to be taken up for hearing and disposal, irrespective of bank choosing to remain absent. List this writ petition under heading "For Orders"? on 3rd January, 2019."?;