INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO Vs. THIRD INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suhas Chandra Sen, J: This case arises out of an order passed by the Third Industrial Tribunal on 16th November, 1982 on a reference from the Government of West Bengal, Labour Department on 4th November, 1980.

(2.) The facts relevant for the purpose of this case may be briefly set out as under: Animesh Chandra Sen is a Geologist. He passed M.Sc. from Calcutta University and joined Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. The initial appointment was as an Assistant Geologist on temporary basis at the Company s Lohardaga Mines, near Ranchi in the State of Bihar. This appointment was with effect from 1st November, 1963 at a salary of Rs. 500A per month. Shri Sen was made permanent with effect from 1st June 1965 and his salary was raised to Rs. 550/- per month. Later on his salary was further increased to Rs. 988/- per month. On 25th September, 1969, Shri Sen was given a promotion to the post of Geologist and was assigned also technical, personnel and public relation activities and there was further increments to Rs. 988/- per month. On or about 5th December, 1970, the respondent No. 2 Animesh Chandra Sen along with two other officers of the company T.K.. Dey and A.K. Mondal met with a serious accident on a highway while travelling in a hired taxi. At that time, the respondent No. 2 Shri Sen worked at Chandghad Mines of the company. The result of the accident was serious and respondent No. 2 was admitted to a Nursing Home in Belg. The respondent No. 2 had suffered a fracture in his right hip bone. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 came to Calcutta and was posted at the Head Office with effect from 31st December, 1970. According to the company such transfer was made purely on a compassionate ground in order that the respondent No. 2 might receive medical care and treatment according to his choice. This is, however, disputed by the respondent No. 2.

(3.) The case of the company is that the respondent No. 2 continued to remain ill and unfit to take up the responsibility of Geologist in the field for any continuous period of time. The case of the company is that the company required the respondent No. 2 to return to Chandghad for field work during the dry season from October, 1979 to May, 1980. One Dr. S. Dasgupta who examined the respondent No. 2 advised him to avoid strenuous work over a long period. As a result, the respondent No. 2 expressed his inability to go to Chandghad and perform the work for which he was employed. The company, therefore, decided to terminate the service of the respondent No. 2 on the ground of ill health.