VIJAYA BANK Vs. H.C.JAYAPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.12961 of 2015 in allowing the writ petition and setting aside the impugned order, the respondent therein has filed this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein was removed from service by the appellant. A dispute was raised and it was held that his removal is illegal and void-ab-initio. As a consequence, the appellant was directed to reinstate the respondent into service with full back wages and consequential benefits. The same was confirmed by this Hon'ble Court in writ petition No.11437 of 2007 and writ appeal No.1897 of 2011. However, the back wages were reduced to 60% only on the ground that there would be excessive financial burden on the appellant and not because any allegations were proved against the respondent.

(3.) Pursuant to the orders referred above, the back wages and certain consequential benefits have been paid to the respondent herein. However, the appellant did not permit the respondent to encash 240 days of earned leave. Hence, the respondent filed an application before Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal held that the respondent is not entitled to encashment of 240 days of earned leave. Hence, the respondent herein filed the instant writ petition No.12961 of 2015. The learned Single Judge found that the petitioner was entitled to 60% of backwages along with all consequential benefits. The employee was found not guilty of any of the charges alleged against him. Thus, the learned Single Judge concluded that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is perverse and illegal and consequently allowed the writ petition and held that the respondent herein is entitled to encashment of earned leave. However, the learned Single Judge did not examine whether earned leave is part of the consequential benefits or not. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent therein is in appeal.