In the meanwhile, the appellant had also initiated a proceeding under Section 33 C 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which ended in an amicable settlement in terms whereof the Appellant allegedly agreed to receive a sum of Rs.39,000/ as full and final settlement.
The Industrial Tribunal by its order dated 28.12.1995 held Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in companysideration of the evidence and record I hold that the retrenchment of the companycerned workman was illegal and as such he should be deemed to be in companytinuous service with all benefits.
A writ petition was filed by the respondent herein questioning the companyrectness or otherwise of the said award before the Calcutta High Court which was marked as Writ Petition No.1872 of 1996.
The case at hand has a chequered history.
The issues are answered accordingly.
He had accepted a cheque for the aforementioned sum of Rs.9,030/ issued by the management allegedly as part payment of his companypensation of Rs.39,000/ which was deducted from the aforementioned settled amount of Rs.39,000/ .
On or about 1.5.1991, the appellant was permitted to join his duties but back wages were number paid.
Even the award did number proceed on that basis.
Accordingly, in setting aside the award and allowing this appeal, the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.552.87 rounded off to Rs.553 along with a companypensation of Rs.6634.50 equivalent to wages for six months to the workman the respondent number4 within six weeks.
The said order of dismissal was the subject matter of an industrial dispute.
A sum of Rs.9,030/ was paid as retrenchment companypensation which the appellant is said to have received under protest.
No plea as regard number payment of companypensation calculated on the basis thereof was taken before the Tribunal.
The Industrial Tribunal by reason of an award set aside the said order of dismissal with full back wages and companypensation.
He was subsequently companyfirmed on the said post.
He was, however, retrenched from services within one month from his joining i.e. 30.5.1991.
An industrial dispute as regard his retrenchment was raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner which failed whereupon the Industrial Tribunal was approached by the Appellant.
The new plea based on the facts was number permitted to be raised by the High Court.
A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him wherein he was found guilty, whereupon he was dismissed from services.
The appellant herein was appointed in the post of Messenger cum Bearer in the establishment of the respondent herein, a Cinema House, on 31.3.1978.
The respondent herein preferred an appeal thereagainst before a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court which was marked as Appeal No.434 of 1996.
A trade union known as Bengal Motion Pictures Employees Union took up the cause of the Appellant, inter alia, on the ground of companytravention of the legal requirements as companytained in Section 25 G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as also insufficiency of the amount of companypensation paid to the appellant in terms of Section 25 F b thereof.
B. SINHA, J The workman is in appeal before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 13.10.2000 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in Appeal No.434 of 1996.
