- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Brief facts of this intra Court appeal are that workman/petitioner/appellant was removed from service by the employer/respondent. The employer filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') for approval of order of dismissal of workman. The application was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur vide order dated 06.10.2004 on the ground that no charge has been proved against the workman. The said order has attained finality, however, petitioner was not reinstated in service and was not allowed to work. Thereafter, he preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1073/2005 before the Single Bench with a prayer to issue an appropriate writ holding that petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits and treating that no order of termination was ever passed against him.
(3.) Learned Single Judge, vide impugned order dated 15.02.2005, came to a conclusion that approval application filed by employer has been dismissed on merits, therefore, petitioner has to be treated as continuing in service and is also entitled for all consequential benefits from the date of termination till he is reinstated. However, the writ petition was dismissed observing that no specific declaration is required to be made by this Court. It is for the petitioner to approach the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) or even the Payment of Wages Authority claiming his due salary and computation can be made by the concerned court/ Authority. The Single Bench has further held that this Court under its writ jurisdiction does not sit as an executing court in such matters, moreso, when the petitioner has sufficient effective alternative remedies under the various labour laws. Being aggrieved with the order of the Single Bench, the workman has preferred this intra Court appeal.;