JUDGMENT : 1. Let the affidavit-in-opposition filed in Court today be kept with the record. The petitioner challenges an award dated August 24, 2016 passed by the learned Judge of the 4th Industrial Tribunal holding the dismissal of the workman, i.e. the respondent no. 3 to be illegal as it was restrospective in operation. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- as compensation in his favour without any order of reinstatement with back wages. 2. For the present purpose it is not necessary to go into the details of the case. Suffice, however, it is to say that there was a departmental proceeding against the respondent no. 3 and he was dismissed from service. 3. Before the Tribunal the enquiry was found to have been vitiated by the non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner-Company then proved the case before the Tribunal under Section 11A of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Act. 4. The Tribunal found that the charge against the respondent no. 3 had been proved in the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, held that the order of dismissal with effect from July 1, 1997 was illegal and was not justified. However, it does not appear from the award impugned why the said order of dismissal was found not to be justified as it has not been discussed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. The workman contended that no penalty could be imposed retrospectively. Therefore, the order of dismissal is effective from the date of communication of the order. 5. If the Tribunal was to find the submission acceptable it ought to have discussed the validity of the point taken by the workman with reference to the actual date of receipt of the letter by the respondent no. 3 in order to declare the order of dismissal to be invalid. The Tribunal should have also discussed from which date it should have been valid and why it considered the order to be not valid or justified. There is no evidence about when the workman, i.e. the respondent no. 3 had received the letter of dismissal dated July 1, 1997. It was contended that there was no case that the letter of dismissal was handed over to the workman on the very date of writing of the same. The respondent no. There is no evidence about when the workman, i.e. the respondent no. 3 had received the letter of dismissal dated July 1, 1997. It was contended that there was no case that the letter of dismissal was handed over to the workman on the very date of writing of the same. The respondent no. 3 was dismissed from service with effect from the date of the letter, i.e. July 1, 1997. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary the Tribunal ought not to have kept into a conclusion that the order of dismissal was illegal as it was sought to be enforced retrospectively. Even if it was not the case of the petitioner that the letter of dismissal was served upon the respondent no. 3 on that very date, once the respondent no. 3 intended to succeed on the point of retrospective operation of the letter of dismissal the burden of proving the date of receipt was absolutely on him. This is a primary burden of proof which never shifts and which the petitioner had not discharged. The learned Judge of the Tribunal committed a mistake in going by the submission of the workman that it was not the case of the Company that the letter of dismissal was served upon him on July 1, 1997 itself. 6. Even if the letter of dismissal was found to be bad and not justifiable the Tribunal did not direct any reinstatement but merely payment of compensation for long period of harassment and untold humiliation and waiting for “to be till called for death and for the abject penury arising out of the dismissal.” It is not understood if the case of the workman is not proved and if it is further proved that he had committed acts of indiscipline and misconduct how the question of harassment and untold humiliation arise. At least that has never been attempted to be explained by the Tribunal. 7. Mr. Dasgupta, the learned Advocate for the respondent no. 3 relied on a Judgment in the case of Workman of Containers and Closures vs. First Labour Court, West Bengal and Others, 1962 (1) LLJ 471 for a proposition that there can be no dismissal or discharge made with retrospective effect. 7. Mr. Dasgupta, the learned Advocate for the respondent no. 3 relied on a Judgment in the case of Workman of Containers and Closures vs. First Labour Court, West Bengal and Others, 1962 (1) LLJ 471 for a proposition that there can be no dismissal or discharge made with retrospective effect. This Judgment has no application to the facts of the case as in that case the order of dismissal was issued on July 17, 1958 dismissing the workman from service with effect from July 15, 1958. Thus there was a clear case of retrospective operation of the order of dismissal. In the present case in all probability the learned Judge of the Tribunal wanted to apply the principle on a constructive retrospectivity of the dismissal, i.e. the Tribunal never came to a finding with effect from which date the dismissal did take place. 8. Even if one accepts the contention of the respondent no. 3 in its entirety that since the letter of dismissal was sent by registered post it could not reach the workman on that very date at least the letter may be made effective from the date of service of it upon the respondent no. 3. The order of dismissal need not be rendered absolutely bad for the same. 9. I have been informed by Mr. Ghosh, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, that the workman has already been paid his dues till July 1, 1997, at least there is no denial of the same by the respondent no. 3. I set aside the award impugned and send the matter back to the Tribunal by giving liberty to the respondent no. 3 to produce evidence about the date on which he had received the letter of dismissal by post. I direct the respondent-Company to make payment of the service benefit till the date on which he had received the letter. 10. The petitioner shall be entitled to take back a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- which it had deposited with the learned Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta along with the interest accrued thereon. 11. The writ petition thus succeeds. The award impugned is set aside and remanded to the Tribunal. 12. There shall be no order as to costs.