Case: JAKIR MALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

1. Leave granted. 2. In this appeal the appellant has questioned the legality and correctness of the order in D.B. Writ Review No.100/2017 dated 7.2.2018 whereby the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur has modified the directions contained in para 6 of its order dated 7.3.2017 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 115 of 2015. 3. The appellant-workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate Government to Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for its adjudication. By Award dated 5.7.2001 passed in Industrial Dispute Case No.45 of 1995, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court answered the Reference made to it in favour of the appellant and directed the respondent to confer the semi-permanent status w.e.f. 1.11.1991. The writ petition filed by the respondents challenging the said Award was dismissed on 21.10.2002. 4. During the pendency of the above industrial dispute, the appellant was removed from service on 15.12.1992. The removal of service was also the subject-matter of industrial dispute and the appropriate Government referred the dispute to Labour Court and the case was registered as Labour Dispute Case No.85 of 1997. 5. By an Award dated 28.10.2004 passed in said Labour Dispute, the Labour Court answered the Reference in favour of the appellant. The Labour Court declared the removal of the appellant illegal being in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court further directed the respondents to reinstate the appellant with 50% back wages accrued from the date the appellant raised the dispute. 6. Being aggrieved by the said Award, the respondents preferred writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan. Learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court by order dated 27.11.2013, held that the appellant was entitled for reinstatement in service with all continuity and consequential benefits but denied the back wages to the appellant. Further, the Learned Single Judge directed the respondents to comply the order on or before 15.3.2014. This order was passed on the basis of a proposal made by the appellant, which was in consonance with the policy of the Government of Rajasthan circulated under Circular dated 23.10.2013. 7. The respondents challenged the order of the Learned Single Judge before the Division Bench. The Division Bench by its order dated 7.3.2017 disposed of the writ appeal by observing as under: 4. In our opinion, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is on concession given by the respondent workman that they will forego back wages therefore, the circular dated 23.10.2013 issued by the State Government was accepted and the writ petition was disposed of. 5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. No case for interference is made out. 6. The appeal stands dismissed. The compliance of the order of the Learned Single Judge will be made within a period of 30 days from today and the respondent workman will be paid full salary form 7.1.1997. 8. The respondents re-instated the appellant on 21.4.2017. 9. However, the Division Bench has reviewed the order by modifying the directions contained in para 6 of the order dated 7.3.2017. 10. Having heard leaned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Division Bench was not justified in denying arrears of salary to the appellant. As noted above, the Learned Single Judge by order dated 27.11.2013 has taken into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case while directing re-instatement of the appellant in service. However, the back wages were denied on the basis of the consent of the appellant. The consent was given by the appellant to forego back wages on the basis of a Circular dated 23.10.2013. In terms of this order, the respondents ought to have reinstated the appellant on 15.3.2014. The appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed by the Division Bench on 7.3.2017. Para 6 of this order makes it clear that the respondents have to re-instate the appellant and to pay full salary from 7.1.1997. 11. We are of the view that the Division Bench was not justified in modifying para 6 of the order dated 7.3.2017.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]10. Having heard leaned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Division Bench was not justified in denying arrears of salary to the appellant. As noted above, the Learned Single Judge by order dated 27.11.2013 has taken into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case while directing re-instatement of the appellant in service. However, the back wages were denied on the basis of the consent of the appellant. The consent was given by the appellant to forego back wages on the basis of a Circular dated 23.10.2013. In terms of this order, the respondents ought to have reinstated the appellant on 15.3.2014. The appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed by the Division Bench on 7.3.2017. Para 6 of this order makes it clear that the respondents have to re-instate the appellant and to pay full salary from 7.1.1997.11. We are of the view that the Division Bench was not justified in modifying para 6 of the order dated 7.3.2017.