NARESH PAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.

(2.) Counsel for both the parties have been heard. Petitioner seeks, a writ of certiorari, for quashing the letter dated 12.7.2001, whereby in response to petitioners application under section 33(C) (1) implementation of the a ward and issuance of recovery certificate, he was advised to have the amount computed under Section 33(C) (2) of the I.D.Act. Petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue a recovery certificate for back wages for the period 9.5.1995 to 31.5.2001 as per the calculation chart filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Facts of the case may be briefly noted. Petitioner claims to have worked as a driver for a short period of February to May 1995, with the respondent/FCI. Petitioner claims that his services were wrongly terminated by the respondents. Reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act was made to the presiding officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. Respondents filed their response to the statement of claim, but however failed to lead any evidence and respondents were proceeded ex parte. Award dated 20.2.2001, was passed in favour of the petitioner holding the termination to be Illegal and directing reinstatement with back wages.