RAJENDRAPRASAD SHANKARLAL PUROHIT Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court has decided the present petition on 20th February, 2002. This Court set aside the award while allowing the petition made by the Labour Court concerned in Reference No.171 of 1996 dated 29th May, 2000. This Court directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with 50% of back wages for the intervening period from the date of termination till the date of actual reinstatement. The respondent was further directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to pay the back wages to the petitioner for the intervening period at the rate of 50% within 3 months from the date of receipt of the order. Accordingly, the reference was allowed.

(2.) This decision was challenged by the respondent in Letters Patent Appeal No.1067 of 2002. The Division Bench has decided the Letters Patent Appeal on 7th October, 2003. The Division Bench has confirmed the order passed by this Court in respect of granting 50% of back wages for the intervening period. The relevant observations made by the Division Bench while partly allowing the appeal in paragraphs nos.3 and 4 are quoted as under:-

(3.) Now in light of these facts this Court has to examine the question that during the pendency of Reference the project was closed and in light of that fact whether reinstatement can be granted or not. For this limited purpose, the matter has been remanded back to this Court.