JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition praying, inter alia, as follows: -

“(a) To issue in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to set aside the order dated 28.06.2019 being annexure P-7 to this petition and direction be given to the said respondent to refer the matter before the appropriate forum for adjudication of the dispute.

b) A direction would be given to the concerned respondent to send the order of reference to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal after framing the issue for adjudication of the dispute between the writ petitioner as well as the respondent bank.

c) Writ in the nature of Certiorari, commanding the respondents to produce all the relevant documents in connection with the matter so that conscionable justice may be rendered, after setting aside the order dated 28.06.2019 being annexure P-7 to this application.

d) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) above.

e) An interim order with a direction upon the concerned respondent to send order of reference in accordance with law to the appropriate Tribunal.

f) And pass any order or orders, direction or directions as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper.”

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:-

a. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk-cum-accounts clearance staff at the Bank of India, Garden Reach Branch, Kolkata, on 15th July, 1994. He was later transferred on 10th July, 2003 to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Office of Bank of India.

b. While in service, the petitioner was alleged to have committed misconduct by failing to deposit certain amounts in customers’ savings accounts within the stipulated time. On this allegation, the Bank issued a charge-sheet and conducted a departmental enquiry. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement/removal from service under Clause 6(c) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April, 2002, by an order dated 26th March, 2004.

c. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 30th April, 2004 and made submissions on 26th May, 2004. However, the Appellate Authority, by an order dated 12th July, 2004, upheld the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.

d. Following the appellate order, the petitioner became unemployed and claimed to have suffered extreme financial hardship. After a considerable lapse of time, he submitted a representation dated 10th November, 2008 before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bank of India, Head Office, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai challenging the Appellate Authority’s order. As no response was received, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble High Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. No. 7589 (W) of 2011. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on 15th May, 2018.

e. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal under Section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the year 2019. However, since the said provision had already been repealed in 2016, the application became infructuous. The petitioner also filed a review application dated 9th July, 2018 against the Appellate Authority’s order, but the same yielded no result.

f. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute by submitting a representation dated 11th December, 2017 before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, Government of India, 5th Floor, 236, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 020 alleging unlawful compulsory retirement. Against the said application in connection with the review of Appellate Authority’s order, the Deputy Zonal Manager, Bank of India replied by his letter dated 13.07.2018 stating that there is no provision of bi-partite settlement for the workman staff for review of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority/Appellate Authority.

g. During conciliation proceedings, the Assistant L