(1.) Issue Rule. With consent of learned counsel for parties, the matter is heard finally.
(2.) The petitioner, an employee of the respondent DTC, was working with it since 1963. On certain allegations of having been party to a strike, his services were terminated on 18.3.1988. 3.It is alleged that the DTC, later was of the view that the order of termination required re-consideration. Accordingly, on 20th October, 1989 the petitioner was reinstated to the services. The order inter alia stated as follows: ?He will not be entitled to draw any compensation or salary or allowance or any financial benefit for the intervening period from his dismissal to re- appointment. He will have to promise that he will not file any such claim from management court or Agency. The intervening period from the date of his dismissal to re-appointment shall be deemed as dice-non and this period will be taken in account for the purpose of calculating leave, bonus, increment, Provident Fund, Gratuity etc. He will not be deprived from the benefit or prior to his dismissal period. He will withdraw all writ and applications pending in any court, Industrial Tribunal or any arbitrator challenging dismissal order or in demand to get any relief. He will file an application to withdraw his complaint given against his dismissal before Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. He will not raise any dispute against his dismissal and above terms and conditions in any form.
(3.) He will have to deposit all amount which he had received as Notice Salary, scrutiny, Compensation, Gratuity, P.F. Amount at the time of dismissal under provisions of various regulations, back to the DTC otherwise this amount will be adjusted at the time of retirement without paying any benefit for intervening period.?