EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF CALCUTTA TELEPHONES Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated August 7, 2018 passed by a learned Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition presented by the appellant [W.P. No.12942 (W) of 2009] challenging the award dated February 6, 2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Industrial Tribunal at Kolkata (hereafter the tribunal) in Reference No.26 of 1997 was dismissed and thereby the impugned award upheld.

(2.) We find from the award impugned before the Court of Writ that the respondent no.4, Madan Mohan Saha, had been appointed as a daily rated mazdoor by the Calcutta Telephones with effect from September 1, 1981 initially for 90 days. He had worked in 52 Exchange of Calcutta Telephones till November 17, 1987. Thereafter he was transferred to 37 Exchange where he worked till November 30, 1988. Owing to his illness, the respondent no.4 had applied for leave which was granted. Such leave was subsequently extended as he was suffering from jaundice and remained on leave till February 2, 1989. On February 3, 1989, when the respondent no.4 reported for duty with a medical certificate, a senior official of 37 Exchange refused him permission to resume duty. The respondent no.4 thereafter sent reminders and also visited his office on a number of occasions with a prayer to resume duty but, unfortunately, such prayers fell on deaf ears. The respondent no.4 had since come to learn that those similarly placed like him had been considered for regularisation and even made permanent, but he was singled out for differential treatment. This led to an industrial dispute being raised by the respondent no.4. Conciliation proceedings having failed, the matter reached the tribunal. We need not refer to, in any great detail, what happened initially before the tribunal. Suffice it to record that the tribunal was required, by an order of this Court, to decide the reference afresh upon due consideration of the evidence that was adduced. The tribunal came to a finding that the employer had illegally refused the respondent no.4 permission for resumption of duty and, accordingly, it directed reinstatement of the respondent no.4 with consequential benefits.

(3.) The learned Judge of the Court of Writ heard the parties and by a detailed judgment declined to interfere with the findings of the tribunal and as has been noted above, proceeded to uphold the award.