ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Rakesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for workman-opposite party no. 2. Writ Petition No. 1452 (SS) of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 1415 (SS) of 1998 though involve different issues but pertain to the same workman, therefore, both the writ petitions were heard together. The earlier writ petition filed in the year 1995 i.e. Writ Petition No. 1452 (SS) of 1995 arises out of the labour court award rendered in Adjudication Case No. 215 of 1990 whereby the order of dismissal passed by the petitioner employer dated 30.1.1982 was held to be bad inlaw and the opposite party no. 2 workman was reinstated in service with all back wages.
(2.) Insofar as Writ Petition No. 1415 (SS) of 1998 is concerned, the same has been filed by the workman against the order of termination from service passed on 23.9.1997 allegedly on the ground that he had deliberately not chosen to comply with the order of transfer dated 14.10.1995 and thus, failed to join at the transferred place at Pune despite having received travelling allowance towards the same.
(3.) It is in dispute between the parties that the workman was reinstated on 30.9.1995 after passing of two consecutive interim orders by this Court on 7.8.1995 and 28.9.1995 in Writ Petition No. 1452 (SS) of 1995, which are extracted asUnder: under: 7.8.1995 "Sri B.S. Rawat appears for opposite party No. 2. He prays for and is allowed two weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder if any within a week thereafter. List immediately thereafter. Till the next date of listing, the operation of the award contained in annexure-1 is stayed, so far as it relates to the payment of back wages to opposite party No. 2. Let a copy of this order be issued within three days to the learned counsel for petitioner." 28.9.1995 "Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has received counter affidavit on 21.8.95. He prays for and is allowed two weeks' time to file Rejoinder Affidavit. Since stay order is operative till today, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for its extension. Sri B.S. Rawat, learnedcounsel for the respondents states that by the interim order the payment of back wages alone has been stayed and, therefore, petitioner was under obligation to reinstate the respondent no. 2 and to pay him current salary and since the petitioner has reinstated the respondent no. 2, therefore, he is entitled for extension of the stay order which should be therefore, discharged. Sri Nakul Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that petitioner will reinstate the respondent no. 2 if he has already been reinstated, within a period of two weeks from today, as per Award of the Labour Court, on the post which he held earlier and shall also be paid his salary and other emoluments payable to him under the provision of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with effect from the date of filing of the writ petition. The payment of arrears shall be made to the respondent no. 2 within a period of four weeks. So far as the current salary is concerned, the same shall be paid by 15th October, 1995. In case, petitioner fails to comply with the above directions, the stay order shall stand discharged and it will be open to respondent no. 2 to execute the Award in accordance with law. However, it will be open to the petitioner either to take work from respondent no. 2 after his reinstatement.";