Gora Chand De, J. - (1.) The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether a short payment of retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, not specifically pleaded by the workman vitiates the order of retrenchment.
(2.) The workman was appointed in the rank of messenger-cum-bearer in the petitioner company, Purna Theatre which is a cinema house on March 31, 1978. For gross misconduct a charge-sheet was issued against him on October 16, 1985 and in the domestic inquiry, he was found guilty and was dismissed from his service on July 20, 1985. The workman moved the Industrial Tribunal which by an award dated January 10, 1991 set aside the order of dismissal and reinstated the workman with full back wages. The workman joined the service as per the award on May 1, 1991. But on May 30, 1991 the Company retrenched the workman, w.e.f. June 6, 1991 on the ground that he was a surplus hand due to loss of business volume in the Company and an amount of Rs. 9030.30 was paid as retrenchment compensation. The workman received the said amount without raising any objection before the date of retrenchment. By a letter dated June 4, 1991, the Joint Secretary of the Bengal Motion Picture Employees' Union protested against the order of retrenchment and a similar letter was issued by the workman on June 8, 1991 protesting against his retrenchment from the service.
(3.) The workman being aggrieved by the order of retrenchment raised an industrial dispute and ultimately a reference was made to the third Industrial Tribunal on the following issues: "Whether the retrenchment of Shri Krishna Bahadur w.e.f. May 6, 1991 is justified? What relief, if any, is the workman entitled to?" The workman filed his written statement before the Industrial Tribunal on September 14, 1993 and the Company also filed its written statement on November 9, 1993. Evidence was adduced by the rival parties and ultimately the Industrial Tribunal passed an award on December 28, 1995 holding that the retrenchment of the workman was illegal mainly on the ground that full retrenchment compensation was not paid and the principle of Mast come first go was not followed. The said award was challenged by an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was registered as W.P. No. 1872 of 1996 and the learned single Judge by his judgment dated September 25, 1996 dismissed the appeal upholding findings of the Tribunal mainly on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 25-F (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.;