- (1.) HEARD both sides.
(2.) THE petitioner, a teacher in the school of Respondent No. 2, challenges the decision of the Presiding Officer -cum -Authority, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in BSE Case No. 11 of 1985 under Section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 in so far as it relates to the punishment imposed on her by that Authority, The litigation has had a chequered career. The petitioner was removed from service on 8.7.1985 on being found guilty of misappropriation of funds. She challenged that order before the Appellate Authority under Act. That Authority set aside the order of the Management and by order dated 6.2.1989, directed her reinstatement with back wages. That order of the Appellate Authority was challenged in this Court by the Respondent No. 2. Though, this Court accepted the case of the petitioner that the finding of misappropriation of funds was not justified, it held that she was guilty of misconduct as was guilty of habitual negligence in work. The High Court also directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 9,101/ - subject to scrutiny of accounts. Finding that the punishment of dismissal was too harsh, this Court directed the Appellate Authority to consider the question of punishment afresh in the light of the finding rendered in the judgment. The petitioner challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court declined to entertain the petition for Special Leave to Appeal. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority, by order dated 10.9.1991, held that the petitioner be reinstated in service without back wages, but with all other benefits. In other words, the Appellate Authority imposed the punishment of nonpayment of back wages for the period from 8.7.1985 till 10.9.1991. The direction for deposit of the sum of Rs. 9,101/ - in the concerned account within one month of her joining was also incorporated indicating that the aforesaid deposit will be subject to refund of excesses, if any, found on auditing and verification of the accounts. This writ petition has been filed by the petition challenging the punishment thus imposed.
(3.) IN view of the prior order of remand made by this Court, we are not concerned with the question, whether an appeal under the Act before the Appellate Authority was maintainable or not in this case, since not only the parties but we are also bound by the decision of a co -equal bench of this Court remanding the proceeding to the Appellate Authority for the purpose of fixing the punishment. Therefore, we are not referring to the arguments attempted to be advanced on the question of maintainability of the Appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority under the Act.;