(Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)
State of Gujarat & Anr. _____________________________ Appellant(s)
v.
Bhanji Gopal Karchhar ______________________________ Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 2500-2501 of 2016, decided on March 3, 2016
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 29951-29952/2015]
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The challenge in these appeals is against the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 06.08.2004 as well as the order of the Division Bench dated 27.06.2014. While by order dated 06.08.2004, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has modified the award of the learned Labour Court to entitle the respondent-workman to receive all retiral benefits, by order dated 27.06.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the L.P.A. filed by the State against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.08.2004 has been dismissed as not maintainable.
4. Though this Court while considering challenges against similar orders of the learned Division Bench of the High Court holding L.P.As. to be not maintainable, has taken a different view, yet, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it would be just and proper to terminate the proceedings finally at this stage without remanding the matter to the Division Bench of the High Court for a de novo consideration.
5. The respondent-workman who at the relevant time was a Round Forester was dismissed from service after a departmental inquiry. This was on 10.12.1968. The respondent filed a suit challenging the said dismissal, which was dismissed on 25.10.1971. Thereafter, his First Appeal also ended in an order of dismissal on 22.11.1973. The respondent’s tenure of service was due to be over and he was to be superannuate some time in the year 1992. After a long period of silence since the dismissal of the First Appeal in the year 1973, the respondent sought and obtained an industrial reference in the year 1995. The question referred for adjudication by the Labour Court was the entitlement of the respondent-workman to reinstatement with back-wages etc. The Labour Court by an award dated 19.05.1998 directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman with continuity of service and 40% back wages. When it was pointed out to the High Court in the writ petition filed by the State that the respondent-workman had superannuated in the year 1992, the learned Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated 06.08.2004, modified the award by directing that the respondent be understood to have continued in service and therefore is entitled to all retiral benefits. The State filed an L.P.A. before the High Court which has been answered in the terms noticed above. For the reasons already indicated, it is the correctness of the award of the Labour Court and the view taken by the learned Single Judge and the directions issued that are proposed to be adjudicated by us in the present appeals.
6. At the outset, we would like to put on record that it is agreed at the Bar that pursuant to order dated 06.08.2004 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the respondent-workman had been paid a total amount of Rs. 17,71,318/- on account of retiral benefits and is presently in receipt of provisional pension.
7. We do not understand as to how the industrial reference with regard to the entitlement of the respondent-workman to reinstatement etc. could have been made in the year 1995 in a situation where the respondent-workman after dismissal from service in the year 1968 had superannuated from the service in the year 1992. While it is correct that the said facts were not pointed out before the Labour Court hearing the industrial reference, the same, which go to the root of the matter, were easily verifiable from the admitted facts of the case if an attempt was to be made.
8. Be that as it may, a consideration of the award of the learned Labour Court on merits also indicate that the Labour Court virtually sat in judgment over the conclusions of the inquiry officer as if it was hearing an appeal against the findings of the domestic inquiry. Coupled with the above is the additional fact that the Civil Court in the original suit as well as in the First Appeal filed by the respondent-workman had affirmed the order of dismissal. All these would go to show that the award of the learned Labour Court was legally infirm and needed correction. This is where according to us the High Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in the Writ Petition filed by the State. As already noticed, the High Court appears to have reconciled itself to the situation that nothing can be done as the workman had retired and, therefore, the order of reinstatement should be understood to be one of deemed continuation in service so as to entitle the respondent-workman to all retirement benefits.
9. Having regard to the glaring infirmities in the award and the facts of the case, as noted above, we are of the view that the High Court should have corrected the errors committed by the learned Labour Court while passing the award in question. Accordingly, we set aside the award dated 19.05.1998 passed by the learned Labour Court as well as order dated 06.08.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge.
10. We however direct that in the facts of the case, all amounts that the respondent-workman may have received till date shall not be recovered from him keeping in mind the advanced age that the respondent-workman has reached as on date. However, we make it clear that beyond the above no further relief would be due to the respondent-workman and he will not be entitled to payment of any further amount on account of provisional/final pension with effect from the date of this Order.
11. Consequently, the appeals are allowed, the award dated 19.05.1998 passed by the learned Labour Court and the order dated 06.08.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court are set aside.
———
