JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J:

1. The present writ application has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order dated 23rd May, 2019 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, RO, Park Street Kolkata.

2. The original respondent no. 4 was appointed with the writ petitioner sometimes in or about 13th February 1993 in the maintenance department. While the original respondent no. 4 was in employment, a charge sheet-cum-order of suspension dated 12th December 2001 was issued alleging that the original respondent no. 4 along with other employees, who were either on duty or off duty had assembled in front of the main gate, walked through the lobby towards the office of the VP & GM (O), shouted slogans and pasted posters, both inside and outside the hotel lobby thereby defacing the entire walls. The above constituted major misconduct on the part of the original respondent no. 4 and the original respondent no. 4 was called upon to explain in writing why disciplinary action shall not be taken against him. The reply to the charge sheet having been found unsatisfactory, a regular disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the original respondent no. 4 along with other employees.

3. Records reveal that on 15th August 2003, the enquiry officer submitted his report and a copy thereof was also served on the original respondent no. 4. By a communication in writing dated 12th November 2004, the original respondent no. 4 had made a representation. However, no final order in such proceeding was passed.

4. In the interregnum, a conciliation was initiated before the office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The conciliation having failed, the appropriate Government, by order dated 7th April 2008 by a Governmental Order was, inter alia, pleased to refer the dispute between the parties to the Learned First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal by framing the following issues:

“ISSUE(S)

1. Whether the suspension of Sri Rajesh Sharma and 18 others (vide list enclosed) from their services by the management w.e.f. the date mentioned against each in the list is justified?

2. What relief, if any are the workmen entitled to?”

5. The said reference was registered as Case no. VIII-18/2005. Both the petitioner as also the concerned union representing the charge sheeted workmen filed their respective written statements. However, prior to the Tribunal adjudicating the terms of reference, the original respondent no. 4 having reached the age of superannuation on 27th December, 2015 was permitted to retire

6. At the time of retirement, the original respondent no. 4 was paid in total a sum of Rs.12,24,454/-. The original respondent no. 4 accepted the same. However, subsequently, since according to the original respondent no 4, the petitioner did not deposit the provident fund contributions amounting to Rs. 2,73,506/-with the provident fund authorities, a writ application was filed before this Court which was registered as WP no. 11830 (W) of 2018.

7. On contested hearing, by order dated 18th March 2019, a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court, by taking into consideration the grievance of the original respondent no. 4 was, inter alia, pleased to dispose of the writ application by directing the original respondent no. 4 to file a composite representation before the concerned Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner dealing with the affairs of the provident fund contribution of the petitioner, claiming appropriate relief for obtaining pensionary benefits.

8. It was made clear that in the event the aforesaid representation was made within the stipulated period as indicated in the said order, the concerned Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner shall pass a reasoned order deciding the claim of the original respondent no. 4. Records reveal that the original respondent no.4, in terms of the liberty granted by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court had made a composite representation whereupon the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner by affording opportunity of hear