V.K.Gupta, J. - (1.) A very short question is involved for determination in this appeal. On May 21, 1986 an Award was passed by a learned Judge, 1st Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta whereby retrenchment of the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) was set aside and the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was granted benefits of wages upto the period whereby the contract of service between him and the appellant was to terminate.
(2.) The appellant's case all along was that the respondent No. 1 was serving under the appellant under a contract of service and that the period of such contract service was three years. The contract provided for earlier termination of service also by serving a notice of three months. This notice having been served, the service of respondent No. 1 was terminated by the appellant before the expiry of three years, but he challenged the same on the ground that he being a workman, the termination was by way of retrenchment, and, therefore, it being illegal, he was entitled to all the benefits flowing from such illegal termination. The respondent No. 3, the Judge, 1st Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta upheld the contention of the respondent No. 1 and declared him to be a workman. It also upheld the contention that the termination of service was by way of retrenchment and this being contrary to law, he accordingly set aside the termination by declaring it to be an illegal retrenchment. On the question of contract of service, however, the respondent No. 3 held that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to benefits only conterminous with the determination of the period under the contract of service which was for three years and it therefore rejected the contention of the respondent No. 1 that he was entitled to benefits till he attained the normal age of superannuation and not as per the terms of the contract. It was against this part of the Award that the respondent No. 1 filed a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this court which vide judgment dated July 12, 1996 delivered by a learned single Judge was allowed. The learned single judge accordingly granted the relief of payment of back wages to the respondent No. 1 herein up till his normal age of superannuation and accordingly set aside that part of the Award passed by the respondent No. 3 whereby the respondent No. 1 was held entitled to the grant of back wages only conterminous with the period of contract.
(3.) The only point urged before us by Mr. Pradip Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, is that before filing of the above writ application in this court, the respondent No. 1 had unequivocally accepted the Award passed by the respondent No. 3 and had obtained the entire amount awarded in his favour without any demur, protest, reservation and without any prejudice to his rights and contentions. Once he did so, he was not entitled to challenge the Award in this court. This contention was raised by the appellant before the learned single judge also, but since it did not find favour with the learned single judge, the judgment was pronounced against the appellant on this ground.;