BIPAD BHANJAN SARKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition concerns a challenge to the award dtd. 30/9/2019 passed by the Learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal 'cum' Labour Court (in short, CGIT), Kolkata. The petitioners claim to be the employees of the Canteen run in the office of the Reserve Bank of India, Kolkata. It is the petitioners" case that the said Canteen was run by the respondent no.3. The petitioner nos.1 and 2 claim that they were appointed on 20/6/1983, whereas the petitioner no.3 was appointed on 2/5/1975 and petitioner no.4 was appointed on 2/11/1998. The petitioners claim to be members of the Reserve Bank Employees Co-operative Canteen Ltd., Workmens' Union (hereinafter referred to as the 'Workmens' Union'). The petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are, however, the members of the Reserve Bank Employees Co-operative Canteen Employees' Union (hereinafter referred to as the 'Employees' Union'). Both the trade unions are registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The petitioners claim that the respondent no.1 is the appropriate Government. It is also the case of the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 was the Secretary and the petitioner no.2 was the President of the 'Workmens' Union', while the respondent no.4 was the Secretary and the respondent no.3 was the Vice President of the 'Employees' Union'. The petitioners claim that the Workmens' Union and the Employees' Union, had for long been agitating before the respondent nos. 2 and 3 for proper service conditions, pay scales, inter alia, including equal pay for equal work and for regularisation of their service, as employees of the respondent no.2 on the basis of the representations made by the petitioners. Since, the demands made by the Canteen employees, inter alia, including petitioners were not adhered to, the Workmens' Union had raised a dispute before the Learned Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) 'II, Kolkata, Government of India on 17/11/2000. In conciliation proceeding that followed, the Employees' Union was also joined as a party to such dispute. During the pendency of the aforesaid conciliation proceeding before the Office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Ministry of Labour, Government of India, the respondent no.3 issued suspension letters with similar contentions, all dtd. 8/5/2004 thereby, suspending the following petitioners:

(2.) On 11/5/2004 four separate charge-sheets were issued by the respondent no.3 against the aforementioned persons. Since, the disciplinary proceeding had been initiated during pendency of the conciliation proceeding on 21/7/2004, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), had, inter alia, instructed the respondent nos. 2 and 3 not to continue with the disciplinary proceeding till disposal of the dispute before the A.L.C. (Central). Since, the concerned respondent despite the aforesaid direction, had appointed the enquiry officer to conduct departmental enquiry, the petitioners were compelled to issue the letter dtd. 27/9/2004 thereby, requesting the enquiry officer to adjourn the proceeding till further notice from the A.L.C. (Central). The petitioners thereafter did not appear before the Disciplinary Authority.

(3.) Unfortunately, the disciplinary proceeding continued ex parte and ultimately, the petitioners were dismissed from service with effect from 18/3/2005. Since, according to the petitioners, the aforesaid order of dismissal was contrary to the statutory provisions, the petitioners, on 4/4/2005, had submitted a joint application under Sec. 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') before the A.L.C. (Central) against the order of dismissal of the petitioners. Following the aforesaid, a failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer. Since, no steps were taken by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India despite issuance of the failure report, the concerned Unions had filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court which had been registered as WP No. 12882 (W) of 2006. By an order dtd. 28/6/2006, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court had directed the Ministry of Labour, Government of India to immediately take appropriate steps under Sec. 12(5) of the said Act. Although, an appeal was preferred by the respondent no.2, the same was, however, dismissed by an order dtd. 28/8/2006.