JUDGMENT :

A.S. Chandurkar, J.

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the petitioner in person and Shri A.T. Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

The petitioner seeks a declaration that the order of dismissal dated 01.10.2015 having been passed by the respondent no.2-Bank of India in breach of Section 33(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’) is void ab initio and the petitioner be treated to be in continuous service.

2. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that on 20.01.1984 the petitioner came to be appointed in the clerical cadre of the Bank. His services however came to be terminated by an order dated 12.02.1991. Being aggrieved the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of termination by initiating proceedings before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. By the judgment dated 07.11.2012 the Tribunal set aside the order of termination and after declaring it to be illegal, ordered reinstatement of the petitioner alongwith continuity in service and all consequential benefits. The services of the petitioner were reinstated on 02.12.2013. According to the petitioner the Bank intended to harass the petitioner and thus created false records of his absence and sought to treat the same as unauthorized absence. The petitioner therefore approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner raising a grievance in that regard. Accordingly on 10.12.2014 the Assistant Labour Commissioner initiated conciliation proceedings in that regard. During pendency of those proceedings the Bank on 01.10.2015 issued a punishment order and dismissed the services of the petitioner for acts of misconduct. The charges levelled were unauthorized absence, insubordination and making false complaints against the Bank. On the same day, the petitioner approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner and submitted an addendum to the complaint that was pending under Section 33A of the Act of 1947. The Assistant Labour Commissioner on 26.10.2015 refused to take cognizance of the subsequent grievance of the petitioner as regards violation of Section 33-A of the Act of 1947 on the ground that the representation had not been filed through a Registered Trade Union. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid response filed Writ Petition No. 695 of 2016 challenging the same. By the order dated 24.03.2017 this Court held that the communication dated 26.10.2015 issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner was unsustainable and that the same had been issued by ignoring the provisions of Section 33-A of the Act of 1947. The petitioners representation was restored and a direction was issued to transfer the said proceedings to some other Officer, equal in rank to enable consideration of the same in an unbiased manner. The writ petition was allowed by imposing costs of Rupees Three Thousand on the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The proceedings were then transferred from the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chandrapur to the Office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Nagpur. On 03.11.2017 the Assistant Labour Commissioner recorded failure of the conciliation proceedings and forwarded the failure of conciliation report to the Appropriate Government. This failure report was received by the Appropriate Government on 23.11.2017. The petitioner then filed Civil Application (W) No. 2629 of 2017 in Writ Petition No. 695 of 2016 raising a grievance in that regard. This Court observed that such grievance was required to be made in a fresh petition and hence did not entertain the civil application. In that backdrop this writ petition has been filed on 27.02.2018 seeking a declaration that the order of dismissal dated 01.10.2015 having been issued during pendency of the conciliation proceedings the same was null and void thus entitling the petitioner to seek necessary relief.

3. The petitioner in person referred to the facts on record and submitted that the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chandrapur had initiated the proc