- (1.) In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to make payment of arrears of salary from December, 1999 to April, 2001, which was the period during which, the petitioner had worked as Night Guard/Security Guard as well as the arrears of salary for the period from April, 2001 to 04.09.2003, which is the intervening period between the dismissal of the petitioner from service and his subsequent reinstatement.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Casual Labour/Helper in the year 1971 and his services were regularized with effect from 24.09.1983 as Coke Loader in Grade-III post. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Security Guard in T. & S. Grade-H vide office order dated 25.12.1999. Thereafter, a criminal case was instituted with respect to an incident which had taken place on 28.03.2001, which was construed to be an act of misconduct on the part of the petitioner and by invoking clause-28 of the certified standing order of the Company, which was applicable to the workmen of the establishment under respondents-BCCL, the petitioner was discharged from service. The petitioner was also proceeded against in a criminal case being G.R. Case No. 901 of 2001, which resulted in acquittal vide judgment dated 08.01.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. On account of the acquittal, the petitioner made an application for reinstatement in service along with all consequential benefits and back wages and subsequent thereto vide office order dated 25/26.08.2003, the petitioner was reinstated in service on the basis of a memorandum of a tripartite settlement dated 26.06.2003. The petitioner, on his reinstatement, had made request before the respondents for payment of arrears of salary for the period he was not in service.
(3.) Heard Mr. K.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sharad Kaushal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-BCCL. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although, the petitioner was discharged from service but subsequently on account of his acquittal in the criminal case, he was reinstated but the back wages and the consequential benefits were never made available to him. It has further been submitted that although in the counter affidavit, it has been averred that the reinstatement was on the basis of a tripartite settlement, in which, a clause was inserted that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages during the intervening period the petitioner was out of service but the petitioner was never a member of the Union, which was one of the parties to the tripartite settlement and in such circumstances, the petitioner, being not a party to the agreement, cannot be foisted with the terms and conditions arrived at in course of the settlement. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decisions in the case of Anwarul Haque in short A. Haque Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited, 2013 2 JCR 264 wherein it was held that while considering the application of reinstatement in service after the acquittal in a criminal case, direction was given to the respondents to pay 50% of the back wages to the petitioner and in the case of ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2006 1 JLJR 101 wherein it was held that where a settlement is arrived at by an agreement between the employer and the workmen other than in course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement in view of the clear language used in sub-section 1 of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1948.;