ORDER
R.S. Garg, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the employee was removed from service in the year 1994 in undivided Bihar and the reference was made later on and ultimately a final order was passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 2), Dhanbad falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand. He submits that since the basic cause of action accrued in the State of Bihar, therefore, even after division of the State, this Court would still retain jurisdiction in relation to a dispute where cause of action accrued in the State of Bihar.
3. Taking into consideration the facts, I am of the opinion that this Court would have jurisdiction to hear the petition.
4. From the merits of the matter, it would appear that the employee was appointed as motor pump operator at 38, Harding Road, Patna at fixed salary of Rs. 1500/- per month with effect from 2.12.1992 by the Chief General Manager of the petitioner management. From Annexure-2, it would appear that the order of appointment dated 1.12.1992 was signed by some body for and on behalf of the Chief General Manager, Telecom, Bihar Circle, Patna. The employee continued to be in service with effect from 2.12.1992 to 15.3.1994. On 16.3.1994, he was terminated without assigning any reason though according to the employee, he had worked for more than 240 days during the calendar year. The question referred to the Tribunal was :–
“Whether the action of the management of the Chief General Manager Telecom, Bihar Telecom Circle in terminating the services of Shri Bijendra Kumar Das is justified and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?”
5. The parties appeared before the Tribunal. From a copy of the proceeding between Nos. 33 and 36, for the period 7.6.2002 to 4.7.2003, it would clearly appear that the representative/counsel for the present petitioner raised an objection in relation to the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal. On 7.6.2002 no body appeared for and on behalf of the management, therefore, the objection pertaining to territorial jurisdiction was rejected. After the objection was rejected, the concerned workman filed his written statement A registered show cause notice was issued to the management. On 22.10.2002/25.10.2002 no body appeared for the management. The case was adjourned. On 18.2.2003 Mr. D.K. Verma appeared for the management. None appeared for the workman. The case was adjourned to 4.7.2003 for recording the ex parte evidence of the management.
6. On 4.7.2003 the workman was represented. None appeared for the management. The workman witness was examined ex parte. The documents were marked. The evidence of the workman was closed and as none appeared for the present petitioner, the Court proceeding ex parte heard argument and reserved the case. The final award was made on 18.7.2003.
7. Undisputedly no application for setting aside the ex parte award was made before the said Tribunal. The petitioner submitted that the order passed by the . Tribunal, on the facts and the law, is absolutely unjustified. It cannot be sustained and there were no good reasons for the Tribunal to proceed ex parts.
8. So far as the question of proceeding ex parte is concerned, from the proceeding dated 18.2.2003 it would clearly appear that the next date that is 4.7.2003 was fixed in presence of the representative of the management. No body appeared on behalf of the management on 4.7.2003 and no sufficient cause has been shown to the said Court/tribunal for non-appearance. When an ex parte order is challenged before the appellate Court or before any higher authority, appellate Court/higher authority is not required to look into the sufficiency of the cause for absence which otherwise would be within the domain of the first Court. The appellate Court/appellate authority would be required to look Into the grounds on which the Court proceeded ex parte on merits of the matter. So far as the justification to proceed ex parte is concerned, I find good reasons for the Tribunal to proceed ex parte.
9. On merits, it is submitted that the person who issued the order was not authorised by the Chief General Manager, Telecom and as the employee was engaged for a particular job, on completion of it he could successfully be removed from the service.
10. The employee was appointed vide letter dated 1.12.1992. He worked for a period between 2.12.1992 to 15.3.1994. No body ever raised any objection while the employee was in service, that Annexure-2 was a letter issued by some body who was not authorised. It was not even the case of the management before the Tribunal that the employee could not be legally engaged by some body for and on behalf of the Chief General Manager, Telecom. The said argument is rejected.
11. It was next contended that the employee was appointed for a particular period only, therefore, on happening of an event he could successfully be removed. This argument can straightaway be rejected. From the language implied in Annexure-2, it would appear that the employee was appointed on a fixed salary of Rs. 1500/- per month on contractual basis with effect from 2.12.1992 until further orders. Annexure-2 does not say that he was appointed for a particular period or for a particular thing or till happening of ah event. The order also said that it was issued for and on behalf of the Chief General Manager, Telecom. The order was not contingent or conditional. If the employee under Annexure-2 had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, then the law has to take its own course and the employee would certainly be held entitled to a better status than of a daily wager. He could not have been removed without any notice or without the salary. His removal certainly was retrenchment. The said retrenchment cannot be approved. The Tribunal was absolutely justified in answering the reference in favour of the employee.
12. I find no reason to interfere. This petition is dismissed.