IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 8527 of 2006(M) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- R. KALADHARAN, PUTHENPURA HOUSE, MARUTHA ROAD P.O., PALAKKAD-678 007. BY ADVS. SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SMT.A.K.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT, KOCHI-14. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PODANUR, TAMILNADU. R2 BY ADVS. SMT.M.R.SREELETHA, SC SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON 16/11/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: STU WP(C).No. 8527 of 2006(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 : COPY OF THE AWARD DTD 28/02/2005 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 14/1995. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(A) : COPY OF ORDER DTD 25/11/1988 LABOUR COURT IN C.P. NO.49/1988. R2(B) : COPY OF CLAIM STATEMENT IN I.D. NO.14/1995. R2(C) : COPY OF ORDER DTD 12/06/1974 OF RAILWAY BOARD. R2(D) : COPY OF EXTRACT OF PARAGRAPH 2001 OF CHAPTER XX OF RAILWAY ESTABLISHMENT MANUAL. R2(E) : COPY OF EXTRACT OF PARAGRAPH 2005 & 2006 OF CHAPTER XX OF RAILWAY ESTABLISHMENT MANUAL. //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE. STU S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 8527 of 2006 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 16th day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P 1 award of the Central Government Labour Court in I.D. No. 14/95 (Central) in which after finding that the petitioner was terminated from service illegally, the petitioner was denied relief on the ground that since the petitioner was reinstated with effect from 23.7.2004 there is no industrial dispute pending without mentioning as to how the period between the termination of service and reinstatement has to be treated. The petitioner was an employee of the 2nd respondent. His services were terminated with effect from 3.7.1984. In 1995, he raised an industrial dispute in respect of the same, which was referred to the Central Government Labour Court, Ernakulam, which culminated in Ext.P1 award. In Ext.P1 award, the Labour Court found that the petitioner's services were illegally terminated on 3.7.1984. But, in view of the fact that the 2nd respondent themselves reinstated the petitioner with effect from 23.7.2004, the Labour Court closed the industrial dispute holding that there is no industrial dispute pending at present for adjudication. The petitioner's contention is that after finding that the petitioner was wrongly terminated from serviced on 3.7.1984 simply because the petitioner was reinstated from 23.7.2004, the dispute does not cease to exist insofar as still the petitioner's claim for benefits for the period between 3.7.1984 and 22.7.2004 remains. But, after arguing for some time, perhaps realising that this Court W.P(C) No. 8527 of 2006 -: 2 :- may take a serious view on the question of undue delay in raising the dispute, between 1984 and 1995, the learned counsel for the petitioner confines the relief for the petitioner to that of continuity in service from 3.7.1984. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent also. 3. The 2nd respondent has not chosen to challenge Ext.P1 award. In Ext.P1 award, the Labour Court has categorically found that the termination of the service of the petitioner is illegal. Once the termination is found to be illegal, normally the reinstatement has to be ordered with all consequential benefits. Simply because the 2nd respondent had reinstated the petitioner with effect from 23.7.2004, the dispute does not cease to be in existence. Still the claims of the petitioner for benefits for the period from 3.7.1984 till 22.7.2004 remains. Insofar as the petitioner confines his relief for continuity of service without break, I am inclined to grant that relief. 4. Consequently, to that extent, Ext.P1 award is modified. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to continuity of service from 3.7.1984 also without any break. Consequently, the petitioner would be deemed to be continuing in service from 22.12.1983 onwards without break. But, the petitioner will not be entitled to any arrears of salary for the period from 2.7.1984 to 22.7.2004. That W.P(C) No. 8527 of 2006 -: 3 :- period would be counted for all other service benefits. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/