The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference by a Writ Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review and the circumstances under which the Writ Court can interfere with the findings of the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The instant appeal is at the instance of the respondent no. 3 in the writ petition and is directed against an order dated August 10, 2018 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 25115 (W) of 2017. By the order impugned the order of the learned Tribunal setting aside the order of dismissal was set aside. The writ petitioner/the Institute was directed to pay Rs. 3 lakhs to the appellant.

2. The appellant was employed under the Institution of Engineers (India) (for short “the Institution”). The appellant was guilty of being a habitual absentee. His service was terminated on 31st December, 2003. In June, 2006 the workman collected employment experience certificate as well as provident fund dues. Long thereafter, sometimes in December, 2008 he made a representation to the conciliation officer purporting to raise an industrial dispute. The workman applied under Section 10(1B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 challenging the order of termination and prayed for reinstatement along with back wages.

3. The Labour Court, by an order dated July 28, 2014 found the domestic enquiry to have been improper and invalidated the same by setting aside the enquiry report. Thereafter, evidences were led by the parties and the Labour Court passed the award dated December 30, 2016 directing reinstatement in service with 50% back wages and other consequential benefits. The said order was the subject matter before the Writ Court.

4. By the order impugned the learned Writ Court set aside the award passed by the Labour Court and directed the writ petitioner to pay monetary compensation to the appellant herein. Being aggrieved the respondent no. 3 in the writ petition preferred the instant appeal.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Writ Court ought not to have set aside the award passed by the fact finding forum. He contended that the scope of interference by a Writ Court in exercise of its power of judicial review is very limited. He, further, submitted that the earlier writ petition being WP no. 8140 (W) of 2015 filed by the present writ petitioner was dismissed and the contention of the appellant was upheld in the said writ petition. He, further, submitted that the order dated June 8, 2015 passed on the earlier writ petition attained finality and as such the grievances raised by the writ petitioner in the instant writ petition was barred by res judicata.

6. Mr. Majumder appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent submitted that the findings in the award are perverse. He submitted that the appellant was dismissed on the ground that he was a habitual absentee. He submitted that the workman was allowed to resume duty and for maintaining correct record of duration of service adjustment of leave due to the delinquent was made. He submitted that such action on the part of the writ petitioner could not be construed to be grant of leave.

7. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the deposition of the workman in cross examination before the Labour Court on July 28, 2016 rightly observed that the workman before the Labour Court admitted that he did not avail of the opportunity to show cause. The learned Single Judge after considering the documentary evidences on record arrived at a finding that the said documentary evidence go to show that the workman has been allowed to resume his duties in employment. The learned Single Judge rightly applied the ratio of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh vs. Harihar Gopal reported in 1969 SLR 274 (SC) and State of Punjab vs. Bakshish Singh reported at (1998) 8 SCC 222 and held that the purport of exhibited documents are neither sanction nor grant of leave to the workman but were only for maintaining a correct record of the duration of service and adjustment of leave to delinquent employee.

8. On the question regarding that the instant writ petition was barred by the principles of res judicata, the learned Single Jud