- (1.) None appears on behalf of any of the respondents in spite of service.
(2.) This matter was listed as a ready for hearing matter before this Court for the first time on February 22, 2019. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. A direction was issued upon the learned Advocate-on-record of the petitioner to serve notices upon the learned Advocate who appeared on behalf of the workman and also upon the workman by post. On March 15, 2019, none appeared on behalf of the respondent-workman. An affidavit of service was filed to show that notice was sent to the address of the workman as available in the records of the case. In the affidavit of service, it was also mentioned that learned Advocate and also his chamber did not accept the service on behalf of the workman. The General Secretary of the Union, on behalf of the workman, had received the notice. A further direction was given to the learned Advocate to send another notice upon the workman as also the learned Advocate of the workman with an indication that the matter would be finally taken up for hearing on the next date. On April 5, 2019, another affidavit of service was filed to show that the notices were sent by post and the delivery report shows that the notices were delivered. Finding no other option, this Court directed the department of this Court to send a notice to the respondent no.3 i.e. the workman. The Registrar, Original Side has filed a report dated May 2, 2019 before this Court showing that a notice was sent to Radheshyam Shaw by registered post and the Indian Post Track Consignment Report shows that the item was delivered. The postal track report and the delivery report have also been attached to this report. Under such circumstances, the Court is left with no other option but to take up the matter for hearing in view of the fact that there is urgency and a criminal prosecution has been initiated against the management of the company. The petitioner is a company and the respondent no.3 is a workman.
(3.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the award passed by the Learned 1st Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal dated November 26, 1998. Surprisingly, the said award is not on record. No pleadings as to the legality and validity of the award has been raised. The other prayer in the writ petition is for stay of the proceedings under Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act bearing C. R. Case no.76 of 2002 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District - Hooghly. The said criminal proceeding was initiated pursuant to the sanction for prosecution dated September 11, 2001 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal. The contention of the petitioner is that the Learned 1st Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal passed an order on July 30, 1998 by which the Tribunal came to a conclusion that in the absence of the records, which the company failed to produce, the Tribunal would not adjudicate as to whether the domestic inquiry was proceeded with, fairly, properly and validly, ;