- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs: (i) Declare the settlement of respondent with the(sic) arbitrary, unjust, unfair, regarding waiver of 50% back wages other benefits. (ii) Direct the respondent to pay 50% back wage; and other benefits like, bonus, incentive, reward, canteen earneed leave, etc. (iii) Issue the order/direction to pay the compensation for mental agony, harassment, made by the said company. (iv) Issue the appropriate direction to the respondent to pay all cost of this petition. (v) Issue any further order/orders or direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate on the fact and in the circumstances of this case. The brief fact of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as a Store Keeper in the year 1970 and a charge-memo was served upon him on 21.12.1982 on the allegation of that of the Company's property, dishonesty, etc. By order dated 05.07 1980, the petitioner was dismissed from service and therefore, he raised an industrial dispute. The learned Labour Court passed an order on 04.04.1996 in Reference Case No. 11 of 1988, whereby the order of dismissal was held unjustified. The Management was directed to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and other consequential benefits within three months from the date of pronouncement of award. It appears that by order dated 22.08.1996, the petitioner was reinstated in service. However, such office order was made subject to outcome of the writ petition, which the company proposed to prefer against the order of the Labour Court. It appears that on 30.08.1996, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Management indicating his inability to contest another case and he requested for compromise as he was ready to forgo 50% of back wages, if his seniority, promotion and consequential benefits were granted to him. Challenging the alleged compromise entered into between the Management and the petitioner and the denial of 50% back wages, the petitioner has moved this Court by filing the writ petition.
(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent stating that the petitioner has suppressed several vital facts. The letter written by him is subsequent to the order of reinstatement of the petitioner in service. It was open to the Management to take the order of the learned Labour Court in appeal, however in view of the letter written by the petitioner, the Management did not challenge the order of Labour Court by filing Writ Petition Th(sic) all the consequential monetary benefits were given to the petitioner which is reflected in order dated 07.11.1996. On 17.04.1997 the petitioner again wrote a letter for grant of entire earned leave along with encashment of earned leave and it was also given to him In these facts, it has been stated that the writ petition is fit to he dismissed
(3.) Heard counsel appearing for both the parties and (sic)used the documents on record.;