JAYANTANATH MAZUMDAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an useless appeal against an order passed in an useless writ petition. The writ Court now a days seems to be a place where all kinds of applications are made. The scope of writ jurisdiction is not appreciated. Result is this writ petition and this appeal. In the writ petition the appellant challenged an award of 8th Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta dated 5th August, 1983. The petitioner serving with M/s. Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited (A Government of India Undertaking) in its Rajabagan Dockyard. Admittedly the petitioner is a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In May 1977 the petitioner received show cause notice from the General Manager of the Corporation whereby the petitioner was directed to show cause as to why he should not be treated as medically unfit for duties and his services should not be terminated on medical ground under Regulation 98 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations 1950. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner showed cause. Petitioner's service was thereafter terminated. There was an order of reference under Section 10 of the 1947 Act on the following: "Is the termination of service of Shri Jayanta Nath Majumdar justified? To what relief, if any, is he entitled?"

(2.) The order of reference is dated 15th May, 1982. The order of termination was 6th July, 1977. The Tribunal held that the procedure followed in discharging the petitioner was not inconformity with the provisions of the Regulation or Clause of the Standing Order and as such held that all alleged termination was not legal and it amounts to wrongful retrenchment or dismissal and that he was entitled to relief under Section 25A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Tribunal observed that Section 25A has not been complied with and- therefore, the termination was invalid and thereafter the Tribunal made an award to the following effect:

(3.) The admitted position is that the Corporation did not challenge the award but made payment pursuant to the award and the same has been accepted by the petitioner. Thereafter, after a lapse of time this writ petition was filed. We may point out that in the affidavit-in-opposition a preliminary point was taken that having accepted the sum of Rs. 5,000 and having accepted the award, the petitioner cannot now challenge the same. It means approbate and reprobate and acquiescence. It is to be pointed out that though such acceptance has been admitted, such fact was not disclosed in the Writ petition. Reliance was pieced on behalf of the Corporation of two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. M. Ramnarayan Private Ltd. vs. State Trading Corporation, reported in AIR 1983 SC 786 and Dhrubendra Deb vs. Kumarendra Deb, reported in AIR 1989 Calcutta 19. Accordingly the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition. The learned Judge observed that the view taken by the Tribunal was not erroneous and there is no evidence of any error of law. The writ petitioner was not satisfied by the same and he has preferred this appeal.