- (1.) These two appeals are directed against two separate judgments dated 12.10.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge by which two separate writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging common award dated 03.10.2013 passed by the Labour Court & Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer (for short 'the Tribunal') thereby answering reference made to it by the appropriate Government on the question whether the order of compulsory retirement of the workman Bhagwan Singh dated 09.05.2009 was legal and valid and if not so, to what relief he was entitled to. The Tribunal under the aforesaid award declared the order of compulsory retirement of the workman to be illegal and unjustified and held the workman entitled to continuity in service. However, considering that the workman Bhagwan Singh, during pendency of reference before the Tribunal, had attained age of superannuation on 30.04.2012, the Tribunal did not direct his reinstatement, but directed that he shall be deemed to have continued in service till attaining the age of superannuation and be granted retiral benefits, but would not be entitled to any back wages. While the management challenged the award as regards the direction of the Tribunal declaring the order of compulsory retirement of the workman as illegal and granting benefit of continuity in service to the workman along with other retiral benefits by way of filing writ petition (No. 326/2014) before the learned Single Judge, the workman Bhagwan Singh filed writ petition (No. 20498/2013) seeking direction to the Management to pay him entire back wages. Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgments has dismissed both the writ petitions.
(2.) Mr. Hanuman Choudhary with Mr. G.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant-workman argued that once the Tribunal set aside the order of compulsory retirement of the workman dated 09.05.2009 declaring the same as illegal and held the workman entitled to other retiral benefits, there was no justification for not granting benefit of back wages. Learned counsel argued that the moment order of compulsory retirement was declared illegal and non-est, it would have been deemed that order of compulsory retirement was not passed and the workman was entitled to back wages. Learned counsel in support of their arguments relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Others, (2013) 9 SCR 1 and Sambunath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda, AIR 1954 SC 289.
(3.) Mr. R.P. Garg with Mr. Reashm Bhargava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Management argued that the Tribunal was having no competence to go into the validity of order of compulsory retirement of the workman. Learned Single Judge committed gross error of law in observing that Management filed no application seeking permission to lead evidence and it was not in dispute that the primary cooperative society did submit any such application on 13.07.2013 and therefore, learned Tribunal ought to have permitted the Management to lead evidence. Domestic enquiry was conducted in just and fair manner. Application filed by the Cooperative Society could not have been dismissed as not maintainable.;