The absence of disciplinary procedure prior to termination violated natural justice, but evidence indicated the employee abandoned his service, justifying the writ application to set aside the tribunal's award.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present writ application has been preferred challenging the award dated November 13, 2024 as passed by the Respondent Tribunal in Case No. 05/2015 under Section 2A(2) and the impugned Publication order dated December 03, 2024.

2. The petitioner's case in short is that the petitioner has a Jute Mill at the address given in the cause title and employs about 4500 employees presently, wherein the concerned workman had been appointed initially to operate the Boat, owned by the petitioner, which was being used to ferry the employees and persons connected with its Jute Mill, across the Hooghly river.

3. The said ferry service of the Boat has been stopped permanently w.e.f. 20^th February, 2014. Still the petitioner/company as a good gesture kept the concerned workman in its employment instead of retrenching him and provided him an alternative job of a Calendar Operator in the Finishing Department of its Jute Mill, after giving him sufficient training. The concerned workman too gave his consent and accepted his new assignment after duly completing his training without any demur or protest.

4. It was then found from the computerized attendance records that the concerned workman had been remaining absent from his duties w.e.f. 8^th November, 2014 without any information and/or seeking permission from his superiors.

5. The petitioner vide its Memo dated 25^th November, 2014 sent by Registered Post, wrote to the concerned workman that such act of absenteeism on his part amounts to misconduct under the provisions of Certified Standing Orders applicable to the petitioner and also intimated him that such act had exposed the concerned workman to disciplinary action and the concerned workman was asked to report for his duty immediately or to submit explanation for his unauthorized absenteeism.

6. In spite of receiving such notice the private respondent failed to join his duties or explain the reasons for remaining absent.

7. Subsequent notices sent to the private respondent were un-served with the postal endorsement 'left' return to sender, 'door locked' etc.

8. On 15.9.2014 the petitioner received a letter from the respondent workman wherein he alleged that “without following principles of law and/or without giving him opportunity to learn the job of Mill” he was forcibly appointed in Mill and also falsely alleged that his request for his reinstatement had been bypassed by the petitioner.

9. The concerned workman thus raised a dispute with the Conciliation Officer, Government of West Bengal, Uluberia, Howrah.

10. The petitioner vide its letter dated 14th October, 2015 duly submitted its detailed comments to the Conciliation Officer stating inter alia that the purported complaint of the concerned workman is not maintainable, as he had not worked continuously for one year in between 20^th March, 2014 to 19^th March, 2015 in terms of the provisions contained U/s 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, his complaint for invoking provisions of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, for alleged act of retrenchment by the petitioner is not maintainable.

11. As the Conciliation failed, reference was made to the Tribunal and the Reference Case no. 05/2015 u/s 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was