Balakrishna Eradi, J. - (1.) The short question that arises for decision in this appeal by special leave is whether the dismissal in limine of a Special Leave Petition filed before this Court by a party challenging the award of a Labour Court would preclude the said party from subsequently approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to set aside the said award.
(2.) Having regard to the nature of the question arising for determination, it is not necessary for us to set out in detail the facts of the case and a brief narration thereof would suffice. Respondent No. 3 was appointed in 1963 as a Sales Officer in the service of the appellant - The Indian Oil Corporation. He was dismissed from service in 1969 on charges of misconduct but was subsequently reinstated under orders of the Labour Court, Patna before which an industrial dispute had been raised. During the period when Respondent No. 3 was out of employment consequent on his dismissal, some of his juniors had been promoted to higher posts. Subsequent to his reinstatement, Respondent No. 3 claimed that he was entitled to be given promotion with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted and also to be given the higher pay scale of Rs. 1025-1625 from such date. This claim was not accepted by the appellant and that again gave rise to another industrial dispute. The State Government of Bihar referred the said dispute to the Labour Court, Patna on September 26, 1980. The Labour Court by its award dated March 11, 1983 held that Respondent No. 3 was entitled to be paid salary in the scale of Rs. 1025-1625 with effect from December 30, 1970, that being the date on which his juniors were promoted to that scale. It further directed that the 3rd Respondent should be promoted from grade 'B' to grade 'C' and should also be given the benefit of revision in the pay scales of those grades.
(3.) Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant moved this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution by filing Special Leave Petition No. 9147 of 1983. Respondent. No. 3 had filed a caveat before this Court and he was represented by Counsel at the time when the special leave petition was heard. This Court on September 9, 1483 dismissed the special leave petition by a non-speaking order, which was in the following terms:- "The special leave petition is dismissed.";