RATHORE, J. - (1.) THE petitioner preferred a writ petition which was registered as S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4618/99 seeking writ order or direction to quash and set aside the order dated 7. 4. 97 and 20. 5. 99 and further prayed that the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur be directed to examine the application filed by the petitioner company under section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on merits in relation to the enquiry on the basis of which the workman was dismissed from service vide order dated 8. 4. 92.
(2.) THE writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 19. 8. 2002. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge observed that the learned Industrial Tribunal in the order dated May 20, 1999 was of the view that the Tribunal had no power to review the earlier order and since the petitioner indirectly sought the review of the order dated April 7, 1997 after an inordinate delay, the application of the petitioner dated January 8, 1999 deserved to be dismissed. As held by the Division Bench of this court in the case "k. C. Bajaj vs. State of Rajasthan" 2001 (3) RLR 120 = (RLW 2001 (3) Raj. 1794) that "tribunal being quasi judicial authority has no inherent power to review its earlier judgment unless the earlier judgment is ex parte. ". And without interfering with the observation made by the learned Tribunal dismissed the writ petition being devoid of merit vide judgment dated 19. 8. 02. The appellant petitioner preferred this D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1006/02 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19. 8. 2002 as well as against the award dated 7. 4. 97 and 20. 5. 99. It is not disputed that the services of the respondent No. 2 were terminated with effect from 8. 8. 81 on account of failure of conciliation proceedings the matter was preferred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court Vide award dated 1. 8. 85 reinstated the respondent No. 2 with back wages. The award dated 1. 8. 85 is challenged by the petitioner before this court in the writ petition bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2130/85 wherein this court passed interim order dated 29. 1. 86 by which it was ordered to reinstate the respondent No. 2 with effect from 19. 2. 86 with 50% back wages. Pursuant to the interim direction issued by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner was reinstated with 50% back wages and in lieu of 50% Rs. 18,146/- was paid to the respondent No. 2. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent No. 2 committed a grave misconduct in discharge of his duties, hence the employee was served with two charge sheets dated 2. 6. 90 and 8. 6. 90 and after holding the regular enquiry and after observing the principle of natural justice, the Enquiry Officer in enquiry report found the charge proved against the employee and on the basis of finding given by the enquiry officer, the services of the petitioner were dismissed vide order dated 8. 4. 92 and after passing the order of dismissal an approval application was filed under section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned Single Bench in writ petition No. 2130/85 vide judgment dated 13. 5. 93 allowed the writ petition and set aside the award dated 1. 8. 85 and the case was remanded back to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication in the light of observation made by the court.
(3.) PURSUANT to the judgment dated 13. 5. 93 passed by the learned single bench in the writ petition No. 2130/85, the petitioner moved an application on 22. 6. 93 mentioning therein that since the award dated 1. 8. 85 has been set aside by the High Court, the application stands infructuous and no further action required in the matter. The labour court vide its award dated 21. 4. 94 passed the reinstatement order of the respondent No. 2 with full back wages. Immediately after the award was passed in favour of the respondent No. 2, the petitioner moved a restoration application on 9. 5. 94 restoring the application filed under section 33 (2) (b) and the labour Court on 30. 10. 94 rejected the application of the petitioner for restoration. An application was also filed by the respondent No. 2 on 28. 7. 95 for restoration of the case. The restoration application filed by the respondent No. 2 was accepted vide order dated 15. 11. 96 and fixed for fairness of enquiry. The award passed by the labour court dated 21. 4. 94 was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing writ petition No. 4127/94. The respondent No. 2 also challenged the award passed by the labour court by way of another writ petition registered as SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2860/95. In the writ petition filed by the petitioner, learned Single Judge pleased to stay the operation of the award vide its interim order dated 1. 8. 94 and both the writ petitions were heard together and observed finally vide order dated 20. 3. 97 that there was violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and thus the workman employee should be reinstated. ;