Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Bharali, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Office note dated 18.04.2011 indicates that after service of notice, the AD card in respect of respondent No.3 had returned. The said office note also indicates that the respondent No.3 had been duly served and such service of notice had been affected in the year 2011 itself. Records of the writ petition reveals that none appears for the respondent No.3 Management. In the aforesaid premises, it is deemed appropriate that the matter be proceeded in the absence of the respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner after having served in the Indian Air Force for about 15 years as a Medical Assistant, was appointed by the respondent Tea Estate as a Pharmacist. The petitioner during his tenure in the Indian Air Force had received training at the Medical Training Centre, Banglore for 52 weeks and 12 weeks practical training at Air Force Hospital, Banglore. As per the relevant certificate issued by the competent authority, the said training of the petitioner is equivalent to the qualification for a pharmacist. The engagement of the petitioner was initially on a probation basis. On completion of the period of probation, the petitioner was terminated by the Management as per its order dated 30.07.1990 by paying one month salary in lieu of notice. The stand of the Management was that they had received certain communication from the Council of Pharmacy, requiring them not to appoint the petitioner as a Pharmacist as he was not registered under the Council.

3. Be that as it may, it is the case of the Management that on 14.08.1990, the petitioner and some of his associates had gheraod the Manager of the Garden and forced him to write a letter dated 14.08.1990 allowing the petitioner to continue in his employment w.e.f. 01.08.1990. The further case of the Management is that a group of workers of the garden and also some non-workers had forced the Manager to issue a letter dated 16.08.1990 confirming the service of the petitioner. Subsequently, it is the case of the petitioner workman that the letter of reengagement of 14.08.1990 and the confirmation of 16.08.1990 was withdrawn by the Management and the earlier order of termination was insisted upon. In the aforesaid premises, at the instance of the workman, a reference was made as per the Notification under Memo No.GLR.305/97/47 dated 23.03.2000 of the Government of Assam, in respect of the following questions:-

(i) Whether the Management of Durrung T.E is justified in terminating the services of Desouza Ished Pedru at the expiry of probationary period or not?

(ii) If not, is he entitled to any other relief whatsoever?

4. In course of the proceeding before the learned Labour Court, the Management had examined four witnesses, whereas the workman had examined himself as a witness. Evidences were also led in respect of the subsequent order dated 14.08.1990, by which the petitioner was reinstated and the order of 16.08.1990, whereby the services were confirmed.

5. In the aforesaid premises, a further question for determination had arisen as to whether the said orders of 14.08.1990 and 16.08.1990 were issued by the Management under duress. Although both the Management as well as the workman had led evidences relating to such question, but the learned Labour Court in paragraph-10 of its award had held that as the question referred by the Government Notification does not refer to the issue whether the said orders were issued under duress, it was concluded that the Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the reinstatement order of 16.08.1990. The said conclusion of the learned Labour Court had again been reiterated by stating that the Court is only to see whether the termination order dated 30.07.1990 is justified or not and does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the validity of the reinstatement order dated 16.08.1990,