CALCUTTA CHEMICAL CO LTD Vs. D K BARMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two Civil revision applications filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Calcutta Chemical Company Limited and the application under Article 227 of the Constitution (C. W. J. C. 509/67) filed by the employee, Dipak Kumar Barman, arise out of the same proceeding before the Labour Court, Patna, under Section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 Bihar Act 8 of 1954 (hereinafter called the Act), and hence all these three applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. I shall deal with the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the employee as to the maintainability of the two civil revision applications as also the other points which fall for our decision in these cases after I have stated the relevant facts.

(2.) The Calcutta Chemical Company Limited has got its head office in Calcutta. It has got a branch office at Patna which is undisputedly registered as an establishment under Section 6 of the Act. Barman was employed as a salesman in the Patna branch of the Company. He seems to have been so employed on 28-8-1961. On 7-9-1964, Barman's case is that he fell ill and applied for three days' sick leave from 8-9-1964 to 10-9-1964. He had to extend his leave up to 12-9-1964 supported by a medical certificate. The Governing Director of the Company who lives in Calcutta wrote a letter dated 10-9-1964, which is Ext. 1/C in the proceeding, refusing the prayer for leave made by Barman by his letter dated 8-9-1964. Explanation was also asked for, and he was prohibited from resuming his duties till the matter was decided. Barman's case is that he submitted his explanation on 12-9-1964, a copy of which is Ext. 1/b and prayed for resumption of his duties on the expiry of his leave. He received its reply on 16-9-1964. This letter of the Governing Director is dated 14-9-1964 and is Ext. 1/d. According to the case of the employee, his service was terminated from 8-9-1964. He was offered one month's pay in lieu of notice and other amenities up to 30-6-1964 in case he did not contest the order contained in Ext. 1/d. I will do better to quote here in full the contents of Ext. 1/d, a copy of which is Annexure A to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in Civil Revision 320 of 1967.

(3.) The case of the employee further was that he had sent a letter on 26-9-64 to the management enquiring the authority and the reasons for his dismissal, but he received no reply. The Labour Court savs in its impugned order that his letter dated 26-9-64 has not been produced. He also alleges to have demanded one month's pay from the officer in charge of the Patna branch, but payment is alleged to have been refused. He then filed a complaint under Sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Act on 10-10-1964. On that very date, i.e., 10-10-64, the Governing Director, Mr. K. C. Das, is said to have passed an order of dismissal which is contained in the letter of that date. This letter is said to have been received by the employee later. It is Ext. G in the proceeding and a copy of it is Annexure C to the supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner in Civil Revision 320 of 1967. It will be of use to quote this letter also: