MANAGEMENT OF SOCKLATINGA TEA ESTATE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issue of an appropriate writ. The Petitioner is the management of the Seeklatinga Tea Estate belonging to Seeklatinga Tea Company Limited (hereinafter called the Company). The case relates to the dismissal of a doctor of the company namely Dr. J.N. Baruah (opposite party No. 3). The case was taken up by the workmen of the Socklatinga Tea Estate reprosecuted by the Assam Chair Kannachari Sangha, Dibrugarh (opposite, party No. 2). The facts, that are relevant for our purpose are as follows. Dr. J.N. Baruah was appointed as a Medical Officer in the Socklatinga Tea Estate and he was working there as such since 27 -4 -53. The Petitioner alleged that he was inefficient and negligent in his duty and had to be warned several times. On 16 -2 -59 the Company issued a notice on the Doctor to show cause why action should not be taken against him for dereliction of duty and gross misconduct. Thereafter a formal proceeding was drawn up against him and he was dismissed from service on. 20 -2 -59. The Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha took up the case of the doctor and a conciliation proceeding was held, but it failed. Thereafter the dispute was referred to Sri M.K. Barkataki, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Assam on the following points:

(2.) IN the meantime Sri M.K. Barkataki retired from service and in his place Sri B.C. Dutta was appointed as the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court and Sri Dutta took up the case for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. No fresh notification was issued by the Government referring the dispute to Sri B.C. Dutta or transferring the matter to him for adjudication.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Company, Sri Goswami, has made two submissions. Firstly he contends that Sri B.C. Duita had no jurisdiction to take up the case as it was neither referred nor transferred to him His second submission is that the grant of retrenchment compensation was illegal. As regards the first contention, it is necessary to refer to certain notifications by which the Labour Court in this State was constitued. The notification Constituting a Labour Court with Sri M.K. Barkataki as the Presiding Officer is dated the 8th May, 1957 and is as fellows: