JUDGMENT :

RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.

1. The writ application has been filed challenging the award dated 31th March, 2017, passed by the learned First Labour Court, West Bengal in Case No. 01 of 2013 under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which was published by the Government of West Bengal, Labour Department vide publication order dated 27th April, 2017, being annexure P-14 and P-15 herein, respectively. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society under the administrative control of the Government of West Bengal through the Department of Industry, Commerce and Enterprise, Government of West Bengal.

2. The respondent no. 1 was inducted as a trainee in the petitioner’s factory, since 31st July, 1993. Subsequently, he was absorbed in the service with effect from 13th August, 1995, on no work no pay basis.

3. By a memo dated 15th June, 2011, the respondent no. 1 was instructed to report in the “G” shift duty at the petitioner’s factory. The respondent no. 1, however, remained absent from duty on and from 16th June, 2011, without any intimation. After having waited for about a month, the management issued a letter dated 13th July, 2011, to the respondent no. 1 instructing him once again, report for duty within 3 days from the date of receipt of the said letter. The respondent no. 1 by a communication in writing dated 16th July, 2011, responded to the petitioner’s letter dated 13th July, 2011 and denied all allegations made in the petitioner’s said letter. By a further communication dated 24th November, 2013, the respondent no. 1 alleged refusal of employment by the petitioner. A conciliation was also initiated. This followed a proceeding under Section 2A(2) of the said Act and a case being no. 01 of 2013, was registered before the learned First Labour Court, West Bengal. In connection with such case the respondent no. 1 filed a statement of claim, inter alia, praying for a direction that termination of service of the respondent no. 1 by the petitioner is unjustified and illegal and to direct the petitioner to reinstate the respondent no. 1 with full back wages/salary. The aforesaid proceeding was also contested by the writ petitioner and the same culminated in an award dated 31st March 2017, which is impugned in the present proceedings.

4. Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate representing the petitioner, has submitted that the respondent no. 1 during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned First Labour Court had been reinstated on 18th February, 2014. The respondent no. 1, however, on reaching the age of superannuation sometimes on or about November, 2022, has been paid his superannuation benefits and all his claims had been settled. There is nothing more due and payable to the respondent no. 1 since the terms of his employment, inter alia, provided that he had been engaged on “no work no pay” basis. The respondent no. 1 was not paid any amount for the period for which he did not render any service. By referring to the award, which is impugned in the present proceedings, he says that there is no basis for the findings arrived at by the labour Court that the respondent no. 1 was refused entry on four days subsequent to 20th March, 2013. The finding that the respondent no. 1 was refused entry/employment or the same tantamount to dismissal is not based on evidence, the same is perverse. In any event, since the respondent no. 1 during the pendency of the writ application has taken all benefits, no further relief can be afforded to the respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1, thus, cannot be entitled to back wages for the period from 20th March, 2013 to 17th February, 2014.

5. Per contra, Ms. Roy by drawing attention of this Court to the written statement filed on behalf of the writ petitioner before the learned First Labour Court submits that the writ petitioner had made out a case