- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 923 of 2000(R), which was decided vide order dated 9th October, 2001, wherein learned Single Judge of this Court observed that services of total seven workmen were terminated, out of which six workmen named in the FIR and alleged to have assaulted the informant, have been reinstated in the services and the petitioner is the only person who has been singled out. Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner has been allowed and award passed by the Labour court was set aside and it has been held as follows: ...It is held that the petitioner/workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with effect from the date when the other six workmen have been reinstated in service on the same terms and conditions. The said order was alleged to have not been complied with, therefore, the writ petitioner submitted contempt petition before this Court, which was finally disposed of on 4th December, 2002, with a direction to the respondents that the petitioner will be allowed to join duty unconditionally. Then only the petitioner was allowed to join the duty on 21st January, 2003. However, while allowing the petitioner to join duty, a stipulation was made that no payment of back wages will be made to the petitioner for the period from the date of dismissal till the date of resumption of duty and the total period will be treated as dies non. The petitioner being aggrieved against the condition imposed in that order with regard to denial of back wages, preferred the writ petition being W. P. (S) No. 1995 of 2004 , which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 29th January, 2010.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the writ petitioner -appellant vehemently submitted that the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated with effect from January, 1994, in view of the direction given for the other six workmen and so has been held by the learned Single Judge. Then it is submitted that the writ petitioner should have been paid wages from 1st January, 1994 and the condition No. 2 imposed , as referred above, regarding non payment of the wages of the period declaring it to be 'dies non' , cannot be enforced. In alternative, it has been submitted that the petitioner was, at least, entitled to back wages from the order of this Court passed in earlier writ petition being CWJC No. 923 of 2000(R), which was decided on 9th October, 2001. It is submitted that the petitioner was not allowed to join duty and for that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer and not only this, petitioner has to file contempt petition and thereafter only the respondents permitted the petitioner to join the duties.;