S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Bihar State Pollution Control Board (for short -Board) has challenged the award dated 22nd January. 2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 3/96, whereby the Labour Court directed the petitioner Board to reinstatement the workman 2nd respondent in its service with full back wages.
(2.) AS the case can be determined on a short question of law, it is not necessary to discuss and the facts, except the relevant one as mentioned hereunder. The 2nd respondent was employed by the Management of the Board at Jamshedpur as Sample Taker on 15th December, 1983. He was given the additional job of Typist. The Management of the Board issued a latter on 3rd September, 1991 to the 2nd respondent informing him that his services were no longer required. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of termination dated 3rd September, 1991, the 2nd respondent challenged the termination order before Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2948 of 1991 (R). In the said case, the Board brought to the notice of the High Court that though the workman was initially appointed as a Sample Taker, but in the year 1990, vide Annexure -4 to the said writ petition, he was appointed as a Typist for six months with one of the conditions that he must improve in typing job. The workman failed to improve the typing job inspite of many extension of service given to him. Subsequently, when the typing test was taken by a Committee comprising of five members, he failed in the said test. Which was the reason, no further extension of service given to him and he was not retained in service.
(3.) ONE of the plea as was taken by the workman petitioner before the High Court was that one Alok Prakash also failed in the typing test, but was retained in the service and thus a discrimination had been meted out to him. But the aforesaid plea was not accepted by the Division Bench of this Court. By its order and judgment dated 30th March, 1992, the Division Bench while observed that there was no merit in the said writ petition, inasmuch as, workman had accepted the appointment with the conditions attached thereto, without any demur whatsoever, disposed of the writ petition allowing the workman to file a representation before the Chairman of the Board to continue him in service keeping in view the fact that he had worked for about eight years or at least allow him to continue as a Sample Taker. The Court refrained to express any opinion in that regard as the workman failed to file such representation before the appointing authority.;