EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. RAJENDRAKUMAR GOVINDLAL RAVAL & 1

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23/07/2015 in Civil Application No.12076/2014 in Special Civil Application No.10929/2014 by which the learned Single Judge issued certain directions in favour of respondent no.1 herein, the appellant herein-original respondent in the aforesaid Civil Application has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the appellant herein submitted an appropriate application before the learned Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act for approval of the order of termination. The learned Industrial Tribunal refused to accord the approval. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal in refusing to accord the approval of the order of termination, the appellant herein preferred Special Civil Application No.10929/2014, which is pending for final disposal before the learned Single Judge. It is not in dispute that by a reasoned speaking order dated 13/08/2014 the learned Single Judge refused the interim relief prayed for in the aforesaid Special Civil Application. The order passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to grant any interim relief was challenged before the Division Bench and by order dated 11/11/2014 the Division Bench has dismissed Letters Patent Appeal No.1118/2014 and has confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to grant any interim relief. Therefore, as such, once the learned Industrial Tribunal refused to approve the order of termination of respondent no.1 herein, he was entitled to all the benefits as if the order of termination has not been passed. Despite the above, neither respondent no.1-employee was taken on duty nor he was paid any wages and, therefore, he preferred Civil Application No.12076/2014 for appropriate direction directing the appellant herein to treat him in service and to pay him the wages from the date of his alleged termination, which was not approved. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the aforesaid Civil Application and passed the following directions;

(3.) Ms. Lilu Bhaya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge has materially erred in issuing the impugned directions. It is submitted that while issuing the impugned directions, the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the fact that once respondent no.1 is paid the wages and subsequently the petition is allowed, in that case, it will be very difficult for the appellant to recover any amount from the respondent no.1-employee. It is further submitted that even otherwise the learned Single Judge has materially erred in issuing the impugned directions. Ms. Bhaya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has also tried to make submissions on merits of the main Special Civil Application. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the present Letters Patent Appeal is against the impugned directions only, we do not propose to enter into the merits of the main petition as the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal is yet to be considered by the learned Single Judge and what is required to be considered in the Letters Patent Appeal is, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge is justified in issuing the impugned directions