Letters Patent Appeal No.338 OF 2001 (Against the Judgment and Order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2882 of 1997 on 27th February, 2001). BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR -----------(Appellant) -Versus- NARENDRA PRASAD VERMA & ORS. ----(Respondents) --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Mukul Sinha. For the Respondent : Mr. Sujeet Kumar Sinha. --- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH J U D G M E N T Barin Ghosh & J.N. Singh, J.J. The petitioner-respondent was dismissed by several orders in connection with the several disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The last one of them was dated 25th May, 1977. This order became the subject matter of a reference before the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, as appears from the order of the Labour Court dated 19th April, 1983, the Management represented that the petitioner-respondent has been reinstated and thereby held out 2 that the disputes pertaining to the order of dismissal stands settled. The Labour Court, accordingly, disposed of the matter by awarding a No Dispute Certificate. By reason of such submission made, it was held out to the Labour Court that the dispute pertaining to the ultimate dismissal, as was effected lastly on 25th May, 1977, stands resolved by effecting reinstatement of the petitioner-respondent. It is surprising that without approaching the Labour Court and bringing to its notice that the award, as was passed by the Labour Court, was on erroneous basis, the appellant by an order dated 18th April, 1988 again dismissed the petitioner-respondent since he had been dismissed earlier in terms of an order dated 17th August, 1976 and at the same time had the audacity to record in the said order dated 18th April, 1988 that the No Dispute Award, as was passed by the Labour Court, was on the basis of things which were not in existence. The Order dated 18th April, 1988, therefore, is on the teeth of the order of the Labour Court and is contemptuous in nature. It is shocking that an employer controlled and managed by the State could take such a stand and act in such manner. The employer appellant, despite alleged discovery of the fraudulent basis of the order 3 of the Labour Court at or immediately before writing the letter dated 18th April, 1988 did not go back to the Labour Court for the purpose of changing the order of the Labour Court dated 19th April, 1983. For the conduct of the appellant as indicated above, appropriate proceedings are required to be initiated against the appellant, its officers and advisers, but the only mitigating factor is that on 16th March, 1994, the appellant realized that the order dated 18th April, 1988 was not sustainable and accordingly, removed the same in order to permit the petitioner-respondent to serve the appellant employer. However, while doing so, for no just reason, despite holding that the order of the appellant dated 18th April, 1988 was unjust, the appellant prevented the petitioner- respondent from obtaining the benefits of his service which were wrongfully denied on the basis of the said order dated 18th April, 1988 on and from the date of the said order until his retirement. This denial was challenged in the writ petition and the same having succeeded, the present appeal has been filed. The facts, as above, which are not in dispute would clearly demonstrate that the order dated 18th April, 4 1988, which was on the teeth of an order of the Labour Court, was brought into existence for the purpose of wrongfully preventing the appellant to discharge his duties in a Government organization, as that of the appellant, by some vested interest in the appellant and accordingly, there is no scope of interference with the order under challenge in this appeal except that if the appellant so desires, it may take steps for recovery of the benefits, as have been accorded to the appellant by the order under appeal from the person or persons, who were in the helm of affairs of the appellant when the said unjust, irrational and capricious order dated 18th April, 1988 was passed. The appeal, accordingly, fails. We could impose exemplary cost in the matter and direct recovery thereof from the person, who signed the order dated 18th April, 1988, but have refrained from doing so considering the fact that the appellant is a sick Government undertaking and the person concerned has retired. Patna High Court, 9th July, 2008, S.B.P./N.A.F.R. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (J.N. Singh, J.) 5