MISRA, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for modification of the order dated 31. 1. 2003 by which it was ordered that the applicant shall be paid 50% of the back-wages, pension and other retiral benefits at the earliest but not later than a period of three months. In compliance of this order, the applicant was paid the entire back-wages to the extent of 50% but he filed a petitioner for contempt stating therein that he should be held entitled to house-rent allowance as also gratuity. THIS claim was made by the applicant although he was out of service on account of an order of dismissal for a period of more than 20 years and finally he succeeded before the Labour Court where the order of his termination was set aside and it was ordered that he would be paid entire back-wages and all retiral benefits.
(2.) THE respondent-Management of Hindustan Copper Ltd. filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge, which was rejected and an appeal was preferred against the same by the Hindustan Copper Ltd. THE appeal of the Management of the Hindustan Copper Ltd. was partly allowed as it was ordered that only 50% of the back-wages shall be payable along with pensionary and retiral benefits. As already stated, the applicant filed a petition for contempt wherein he stated that house rent allowance for the entire period of 20 years while he was out of service should be paid to him as also the gratuity and other benefits. The contempt petition was dismissed by a reasoned order stating therein that the order for which compliance is sought, does not indicate that he should be paid house rent allowance and gratuity also as house rent allowance is payable to an employee as a consequence of benefit of service which an employee receives while he is discharging his duties. The applicant admittedly was not in service for a long number of years due to the order of dismissal from service and although the order of dismissal was finally set aside by the Labour Court which was upheld on appeal also, no order was passed that he should be paid house rent allowance also. Failing before all the forums on the aforesaid count, the applicant workman has filed this application for modification of the order passed earlier on 31. 1. 2003 and lengthy arguments have been advanced by the counsel for the applicant stating that house rent allowance and gratuity should be held to be payable to the applicant by way of consequential benefits although he was out of service. It is no doubt true that an application for modification may be entertained under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court but the same cannot be interpreted so as to mean that an application for modification should be entertained practically in the nature of an appeal against the final order as that would amount to extending the scope of appeal by a court which has become functus officio. In our view, if the applicant was aggrieved of the order on account of the fact that he should have been granted house rent allowance and gratuity also although he was out of service for 20 years, his remedy obviously would have been by way of a further appeal before the Apex Court against the order of the Division Bench. That having not been preferred, the same cannot be allowed by entertaining an application for modification of the final order. Besides this, the applicant had also failed in securing an order of implementation by granting him house rent allowance and gratuity when his petition for contempt stood dismissed. The applicant did not prefer any appeal even against this order and thereafter has filed this application for modification of the final judgment and order.
(3.) WE prefer to reiterate that an application for modification cannot be entertained as if it were an appeal against the final judgment and order passed by the Division Bench earlier. WE may hasten to add that if the applicant was anxious to insist on the relief sought, he should have argued this point with emphasis when the appeal was decided by the Labour Court or before the Division Bench when his appeal was decided on merit. The Labour Court had merely granted back-wages to him which were reduced to 50% by the Division Bench. Wages having been paid, it is not open for the applicant to contend that he should have been granted further relief of house rent allowance by filing an application for modification. The ambit and scope of application for modification is limited and hence it cannot been entertained in the nature of an appeal. The application, therefore, stands rejected. .;