GOPAL CHANDRA MONDAL Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS in these two writ applications have challenged the order dated 19.8.1994 issued by the Respondent No. 5 whereby their services under the respondent -Eastern Coalfields Limited were terminated. Praying commonly for an order quashing the impugned order of termination, the petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the respondents to reinstate them in service with full back wages and to grant them all consequential reliefs for which they are entitled in accordance with law.

(2.) CASE of the petitioners is that they were employed under the respondent -Eastern Coalfields Limited. While the petitioner Gopal Chandra Mondal entered service under the respondent on 10.7.1992 and was eventually promoted to the post of Electrical Supervisor, Badjna Colliery under Mugma Area of ECL, the petitioner Punu Mudi joined service under the respondents on 31.3.1973 and he was eventually promoted and posted as Pump Khalasi in the Badjna Colliery under Mugma Area of ECL. "While this was so, by letter dated 12.5.1994 they were called upon to appear before the Vigilance Officer and were informed that a disciplinary action would be taken against them for having executed an indemnity bond/surety bond in favour and support of an employee namely Mahesh Modi (son of petitioner Punu Mudi) who, by practicing fraud and misrepresentation and by impersonating himself as Mahesh Kora, had obtained employment under the Respondent -Company. Later, by the impugned order of dismissal dated 19.8.1994, their services were terminated. The grievance of the petitioners is that the order of termination was made without any departmental enquiry and without even serving any charge -sheet or any opportunity of being heard and such order was totally against the provisions of law under Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) THE judgment of the Single Judge was however set aside in the appeal filed by the Respondent - Management, by a Division Bench of the Kolkata High Court. The petitioners were however given a liberty to seek their remedy before the appropriate forum under the Industrial Disputes Act.