D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) Letters Patent Appeal No. 398 of 2015 has been preferred against the order dated 7th May, 2015 passed in W.P.(L) No. 3504 of 2010, whereby said writ petition preferred by the present respondent was allowed and the order dated 23rd June, 2010 passed by this appellant was quashed and set aside. Letters Patent Appeal No. 396 of 2015 has been preferred against the order dated 7th May, 2015 passed in W.P.(L) No. 3817 of 2010, whereby the said writ petition preferred by the present respondent was allowed and the order dated 23rd June, 2010 passed by this appellant was quashed and set aside. FACTUAL MATRIX: Order of dismissal was passed against the workmen -respondents (in both the cases) on 3rdMarch, 1992 for alleged misconduct of assault upon one Mr. Mukul Roy, Deputy Chief Mining Engineer of Gopinathpur Colliery of this appellant at about 12.30 p.m. on 28th February, 1992 (Said letter is at Annexure 1 to the memo of Letters Patent Appeal No. 398 of 2015). The respondents -workmen were dismissed from the services without holding any enquiry taking recourse of Article 311[2] of the Constitution of India. This order was challenged by way of a writ petition before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and order of dismissal was quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court (Counsel appearing for the appellant is unable to furnish the number of the writ petition preferred by the delinquent employees) (Annexure 2 to the memo of L.P.A. No. 398 of 2015). In the aforesaid writ petition order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 5th February, 1993 quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal dated 3rd March, 1992. Nonetheless, liberty was reserved by the learned Single Judge to hold a departmental enquiry against the respondents. Said order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the Management in F.M.A.T No. 669 of 1993 (Annexure 3 to the Memo of the L.P.A. No. 398 of 2015) (Counsel for the appellant is also unable to furnish the nomenclature of the aforesaid abbreviation -F.M.A.T), which was decided by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on 10th July, 1995. The Division Bench upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the order of dismissal was wrong and it was correctly quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge, but, the said Bench set aside the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the Management to hold departmental enquiry and directed that the Management shall approach the competent Labour Court, viz. without any dismissal order in existence anymore and without any Referrence under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Division Bench relegated the Management to the Labour Court. Nonetheless, in paragraph 18 of the said decision, it was observed by the Division Bench that from the date of publication of the Notice of dismissal, viz. 5th March, 1992 till the matter was decided by the Labour court the workmen shall be deemed to be under suspension and they shall be entitled to subsistence allowance. The workmen were paid subsistence allowance by the appellant Management till the Labour Court decided the Reference. Terms of the reference is as under.: "Whether the action of the Management of Gopinathpur Colliery of E.C.L in dismissing the services of Shri Muku Singh, Nutan Kumar.and Nifikir Pal is legal and justified If not, to what relief these workmen entitled" Award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal (No. 2) at Dhanbad in Reference No. 126 of 1997 on 1st September, 2003 (Annexure 6 to the memo of L.P.A. No. 398 of 2015) to the effect that as the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court had quashed and set aside the dismissal order, the workmen will be reinstated with full back wages with consequential relief and continuity of service from the date of the order of dismissal and that the Management will be at liberty to adjust the subsistence allowance given to concerned workmen in computing their back wages. Against this order a writ petition was preferred by the appellant of both these Letters Patent Appeals before this court being W.P.(L) No. 1858 of 2004, which was decided by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 9th February, 2010 (Annexure 7 to the L.P.A. No. 398 of 2015) in which the award was modified slightly, viz. the order of reinstatement was confirmed, but, simultaneously the learned Single Judge has also made an observation that upon representation being made by or on behalf of the concerned workmen, the Management shall consider their prayer for all the consequential benefits of reinstatement and take an appropriate decision thereon by passing a reasoned and speaking order, viz. Learned Single Judge has allowed the Management to take a decision in its own cause. With such a great liberty given by the learned Single Judge to decide a issue in their own cause, the Management decided the issue in its own favour vide Order dated 23rd June, 2010, which is bound to be challenged by the workmen. This order, which was passed by the Management in their own favour while disposing of the representations of the workmen -respondents of both these Letters Patent Appeals, evenafter confirmation of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in the said writ petition, was challenged by the workmen -respondent of L.P.A. No. 398 of 2015 and L.P.A. No. 396 of 2015 in W.P.(L) No. 3504 of 2010 and W.P.(L) No. 3817 of 2010 respectively. These writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 7th May, 2015.
(2.) This appellant (in both the Letters Patent Appeal) being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the orders dated 7th May, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No. 3504 of 2010 and W.P.(L) No.3817 of 2010, has preferred these Letters Patent Appeals Arguments canvassed by the counsel appearing for the appellant: Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that gross misconduct was committed by the respondents -delinquent employees in the year 1992, which was an assault upon a high ranking Administrative Officer of the company and hence, without holding any enquiry, taking recourse to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, summarily the services of the respondents were brought to an end on 3rd March, 1992, which is Annexure 1 to the memo of Letters Patent Appeal No. 398 of 2015. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L)No. 1858 of 2004 vide order dated 9th February, 2010.has allowed the Management to take a decision with respect to all consequential benefits of reinstatement and to pass an order thereupon and in compliance of the said order, a detailed speaking order has been passed by this appellant on 23rd June, 2010, which is at Annexure 9 to the memo of Letters Patent Appeal No. 398 of 2015, and on the principal of "no work no salary" the claim of consequential benefit and back -wages was denied. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing W.P.(L) No. 3504 of 2010 and W.P.(L) No.3817 of 2010 . Hence, the judgment and orders dated 7th May, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No. 3504 of 2010 and
(3.) W.P.(L) No.3817 of 2010 deserve to be quashed and set aside. This is the major ground raised by the counsel appearing for the appellant. Submissions made on behalf of the counsel for the respondents: It has been submitted by counsel for the respondents that after order of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the appeals preferred by this appellant nothing much was left to be decided by any one, much less by the Industrial Tribunal or by this appellant. Once the order of dismissal was quashed and set aside, perhaps, there was no need to relegate the parties to the Labour court or Industrial Tribunal in absence of any Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted by the counsel appearing for the respondents that learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.(L) No. 1858 of 2004 has observed in paragraph 11 of the order dated 9th February, 2010 (Annexure 7 to Letters Patent Appeal No. 398 of 2015) that the award passed by the Labour Court is absolutely true and correct. It appears that instead of the word Labour court, it should have been Industrial Tribunal (No.2) at Dhanbad. However, once the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal (No.2), Dhanbad was upheld, there was no need to allow this Management -Appellant to become a judge in his own cause and to decide the issue of back -wages. Therefore, it appears that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing W.P. (L) No. 3504 of 2010 and W.P.(L) No. 3817 of 2010 vide Order dated 7th May, 2015, hence these Letters Patent Appeals may not be entertained.;