NIKHIL NATH BHATTACHARJEE, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ application the petitioner has challenged the award dated April 28, 1983 made by the learned Judge, Ninth Industrial Tribunal at Durgapur in case No. X-27/80.

( 2 ) THE petitioner's case is that the Steel Plant, known as Durgapur Steel Plant belongs to the petitioner where various categories of workmen including security staff were employed. The conditions of service of security staff were governed by the Hindusthan Steel Security Force (Discipline and Appeal) rules. On December 22, 1968, the parliament enacted the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 and the said Act was brought into force in Durgapur Steel Plant on August 8, 1969. After the said Act was enforced in the Durgapur Steel Plant, its security force was necessarily to be wound up. It was actually taken over by the authority under the said Act with effect from August 17, 1970. The security force personal were, however, given option to join the Central Industrial Security Force constituted under the said Act. The petitioner issued appropriate notices and circulars on and from August 8, 1969 notifying the said facts to all members of the security force of the company and they were called upon to exercise option by August 16, 1969 filling in the application form enclosed therewith and returning the same in the office of the personnel manager of the petitioner. In the aforesaid circulars it was, inter alia, laid down that those of the members of the dissolved security force of Durgapur Steel Plant who would not exercise option in favour of absorption in the CISF would not be retained by the company and they would be relieved and paid retrenchment compensation under the law.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 a senior security guard did not exercise his option for absorption in the CISF even within the extended time valid upto August 10, 1970 and accordingly, the petitioner by a notice dated August 12, 1970 terminated his service w. e. f. the afternoon of August 17, 1970. All the legal dues including 3 months pay in lieu of notice and 15 days average pay for every completed year of service was sent to Respondent No. 3 by a Bank Draft. On the same date a P. Form duly filled in was sent to the Labour Commissioner, Govt. of West Bengal as required under Section 25-F (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 77 of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules. Because of introduction of the CISF which took over the security duties so long performed by the company's security department, the services of the Respondent No. 3 along with others who had not opted for absorption in the CISF had to be retrenched and the retrenchment was made on the legal and justifiable grounds after complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

( 4 ) HOWEVER, the Govt. of West Bengal in its Labour Department by an order dated September 22, 1980 referred a purported industrial dispute to the Ninth. Industrial Tribunal for adjudication on the issue. Whether Md. S. Khan, ex-security man of Durgapur Steel Plant has been properly and legally retrenched? To what relief, if any, is he entitled to?" Written statements and rejoinders were submitted before the Tribunal. In the original written statement for Respondent No. 3 it was not averred that he had opted for absorption in the CISF. It was only after the company filed its written statement stating inter alia that Respondent No. 3 had not exercised option for CISF that the Respondent, No. 3 raised the plea that he had opted for CISF and prayed that his written statement might be amended and he filed an amended written statement. During the hearing on merits the petitioner company filed documents which were marked exhibits. Respondent No. 3 examined himself and the petitioner company examined 3 witnesses. The learned Tribunal Judge after hearing the parties passed his impugned award on April 20, 1983 wherein he found that actual retrenchment was done on August 3, 197

Click Here to Read the rest of this document