MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.)This intra court appeal is directed against order dtd. 30/10/2018 passed by the learned Singe Judge, by which respondent's writ petition has been allowed, setting aside orders dtd. 29/8/2012 and 14/9/2012 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Industrial Tribunal') in the matter of challenge to termination order dtd. 8/4/1992 passed against respondent No. 1-workman by the appellant-employer. Respondent-writ petitioner has been held entitled to get his pay allowance treating him as permanent employee of the appellants in terms of earlier award passed in his favour. He has also been held entitled to receive retiral benefits as per the provisions of law on attaining superannuation. Learned Single Judge has also directed that arrears shall be computed and released within stipulated period.
(2.)The factual matrix and the genesis of the dispute between the parties giving rise to the present appeal has a checkered history which comprises of two different disciplinary proceedings drawn by the appellant-employer against respondent No. 1-workman. Respondent No. 1-workman was engaged as unskilled worker with the company of the appellant on 19/9/1977 until he was discontinued with effect from 8/8/1981. An industrial dispute was raised challenging the termination, which culminated in an award of reinstatement in favour of respondent No. 1-workman. The award was challenged by the appellant-company before the High Court. The litigation between the appellant and respondent No. 1 in respect of the dispute arising due to termination with effect from 8/8/1981 continued and various proceedings were drawn by both the parties by filing appeal, review petition, recall application etc. Finally an award dated 03. 09.2003 was passed after remand by the Labour Court and the termination order dtd. 8/8/1981 was held bad in law leading to reinstatement with continuity of service. At the instance of respondent No. 1, however, aspect of compliance of the award continued and finally vide order dtd. 14/2/2006, Division Bench of the High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1996/2003 held that the award of the Labour Court dtd. 3/9/2003 stands fully complied with.
(3.)While the matter relating to legality and validity of termination with effect from 8/8/1981 was pending consideration at various levels, respondent No. 1 having been reinstated under the orders passed in his favour, another charge sheet came to be issued on 2/6/1990 followed by second charge sheet dtd. 8/6/1990 alleging misconduct on the part of respondent No. 1-workman in respect of the services rendered by him after reinstatement pursuant to award. The disciplinary enquiry ended in issuance of termination order dtd. 8/4/1992. On application filed under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ID Act') seeking approval of the termination order dtd. 8/4/1992, various proceedings were drawn before this Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the parties to this appeal and finally vide order dtd. 30/3/2005, the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the case to the Division Bench of the High Court to decide approval application filed by the appellants under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the ID Act with regard to subsequent termination of respondent No. 1-workman with effect from 8/4/1992.
After the remand of the case for hearing on approval application under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, Division Bench of this Court passed a detailed order on 9/3/2006 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1006/2002 again remanding the matter back to the Industrial Tribunal for deciding afresh application under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the ID Act seeking approval of subsequent dismissal of respondent No. 1-workman with effect from 8/4/1992. The Industrial Tribunal, on remand on approval application, heard and framed preliminary issue as to whether the enquiry conducted by the management was fair and proper. Vide order dtd. 14/6/2006, the Industrial Tribunal held the enquiry conducted by the management to be fair and proper. Thereafter, the Industrial Tribunal passed order on merits on 3/2/2007 granting approval to the termination of respondent No. 1-workman with effect from 8/4/1992. This order was again challenged by respondent No. 1-workman before the High Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1012/2007. Vide order dtd. 13/6/2012, learned Single Judge of this Court once again remanded the matter back to the Industrial Tribunal to decide the case afresh. After another round of litigation, when the matter again landed up before the Industrial Tribunal towards consideration of approval application under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the ID Act afresh, the Industrial Tribunal first passed an order on 29/8/2012 holding that Shri Alok Fatehpuria is entitled to represent the company before the Tribunal under Sec. 36, sub-sec. (2) of the ID Act. Thereafter, vide order dtd. 14/9/2012, learned Industrial Tribunal by a detailed order granted approval to the subsequent dismissal of respondent No. 1-workman with effect from 8/4/1992. These two orders dtd. 29/8/2012 and 14/9/2012 were challenged by respondent No. 1-workman in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3213/2015, wherein learned Single Judge held in favour of respondent No. 1-workman, allowing his writ petition and passing order dtd. 30/10/2018, which is impugned in this appeal.