- (1.) HEARD finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE intra court appeal has been preferred questioning order dated 6.9.2007 passed by Single Bench in Civil Writ Petition No.1269/1984 partly allowing the writ application and granting relief of the back-wages upto 11.9.1997 as per the tripartite agreement dated 22.10.2002, till the closure of the Company. The case has a chequered history. Respondent No.2-Ram Snehi Choudhary was appointed on probation basis vide order dated 24.9.1980. Departmental enquiry was conducted against three employees including respondent No.2. All of them were dismissed from service. Cases of the other two employees were also dismissed by the labour court; however, in the case of respondent No.2, the labour court has held that termination of his services was illegal, as there was no evidence to sustain the order of dismissal. The labour court has passed the award in favour of respondent No.2 on 23.4.1984 directing reinstatement with full back-wages; same was questioned by the appellant by way of filing Civil Writ Petition No.1269/1984 before the Single Bench, same was dismissed earlier vide order dated 21.12.1993. Thereafter, the Division Bench of this Court in special appeal No.272/1995 vide order dated 23.1.2007, while recording a clear finding that removal of the respondent-workman was unjustified and illegal, remitted the case back to the Single Bench for deciding the issue of relief afresh taking into consideration the tripartite agreement. Thereafter, the Single Bench has decided the writ application afresh vide order dated 6.9.2007 and on consideration of the tripartite agreement dated 22.10.2002 held that the workman is entitled for back-wages upto the cut-off date fixed in the tripartite agreement. After the cut-off date, the concerned workman shall be entitled for the benefits as per terms and conditions of the tripartite agreement as referred to above. Aggrieved thereby, the intra court appeal has been preferred. Mr.N.K.Maloo, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr.V.K.Tamoliya on behalf of the appellant has submitted that benefit of back-wages ought not to have been granted in the instant case. It was a case of loss of confidence and as such considering the period for which the workman has rendered services, relief of reinstatement was unwarranted; he however submitted that in the instant case at the most, compensation could have been ordered; He has relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in Municipal Council, Sujanpur Vs. Surinder Kumar, (2006) 5 SCC 173; State of M.P.& Ors. Vs. Arjunlal Rajak, (2006) 2 SCC 711 and; K.C.Sharma Vs. Delhi Stock Exchange and Ors., (2005) 4 SCC 4. Mr.Sunil Samdaria, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that finding with respect to illegality of the dismissal order has attained finality in view of the previous decision of Division Bench of this Court; now only question remains to be considered is with respect to the relief to be granted. Back-wages have been confined till the date of closure of Company in view of tripartite agreement dated 22.10.2002, and thereafter, w.e.f.the cut-off date on which closure of the Company was made, the benefits have been extended as per tripartite agreement itself. Thus, no case for interference is made out in the order passed by Single Bench. Earlier entire back-wages were granted, which order has been modified. In the instant case, we find that the finding as to removal of the workman being illegal and unjustified has already attained finality and is not in question and there was no evidence to sustain the charges levelled against the workman; relief of back-wages has been granted till the closure of Company. The award was passed in the year 1984, it was incumbent upon the employer to reinstate the workman, which was not done. Consequently, the workman was denied the opportunity to render the services from the date of award in 1984 till the date of closure in 1997. His removal was found to be illegal and uncalled for. Thus, wages which have been granted upto 1997, are appropriate. Thereafter, relief has been given in terms of the tripartite agreement dated 22.10.2002.
(3.) WE find that no case for interference is made out in the just order which has been passed by the Single Bench. Reliance has been placed by learned senior counsel on decision of the Apex Court in Municipal Council, Sujanpur(supra) in which the Apex Court has laid down that that it is lawful to grant reinstatement with back-wages does not mean that the same should be granted automatically; the appointment of the workman was not in a sanctioned post and was made at the instance of a Minister de hors the rules and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Same is not the position in the instant case; appointment was on probation basis and it is not even the submission that the appointment was illegal in any manner and question of illegal removal has attained finality, as such reinstatement should follow. In our opinion, relief of reinstatement in view of findings recorded was rightly granted in the instant case. Reliance has also been placed by learned senior counsel on decision of the Apex Court in Arjunlal Rajak(supra) in which it has been held that for non-compliance with Section 25-F, ordinarily workman could be directed to be reinstated with or without back wages, but when a project or scheme or an office itself is abolished, relief by way of reinstatement is not granted. In the instant case, relief granted is as per tripartite agreement and the back-wages granted till the date of closure of Company is found to be justified in the facts of instant case, considering the finding of illegality of termination of services has already attained finality. ;