DILIPBHAI MANEKLAL VYAS Vs. AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 14.02.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act in Review Application No. 64/2001 whereby the award dated 25.05.01 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Appeal (IC)No. 01/98 and the award dated 28.11.97 passed by the Labour Court in T Application No. 248/92 were set aside pursuant to which the petitioner herein was relieved from service.

(2.) (1) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had applied for the post of Security Inspector advertised by the respondent company. The petitioner after being interviewed and having undergone medical examination was appointed on 26.11.90 on temporary basis. However, by order dated 13.04.92, the petitioner was discharged from service. (2)Being aggrieved by the said discharge, the petitioner filed an application before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad being T-Application No. 248/92. The Labour Court by award dated 26.11.92 directed the respondent company to pay the petitioner wages for the period 13.04.92 to 16.02.94. (3) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the respondent company filed miscellaneous application no. 223/92 before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. The respondent on 16.03.94 submitted a pursis for agreeing to keep all the rights and contentions of the petitioner and to reinstate him in service which was allowed by the Labour Court. The respondent company therefore reinstated the petitioner vide its order dated 18.03.94 on certain conditions by way of which it was agreed that the issue of payment of wages and other benefits for the period 13.04.92 to the date of order of reinstatement in the services will be decided as per the award of the Labour Court in the restored T-Application No. 248/92. (4) Thereafter on 9-10th May 1997, the respondent company issued notice inviting applications for the post of Section In-charge in response to which the petitioner applied. After due procedure the respondent company promoted the petitioner as Section In-charge in the Security Department on probation for a period of six months. Subsequently, on 28.11.97, the Labour Court, Ahmedabad allowed T Application No. 248/92 filed by the petitioner and directed the respondent company to pay the petitioner backwages for the period 13.04.92 to 16.02.94. In the meantime, by order dated 29.12.97 the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Section In-charge by the respondent company. (5) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the award of the Labour Court granting backwages the respondent company preferred an appeal (I.C) No. 01/98 before the Industrial Tribunal. Alongwith the appeal, the respondent company also filed an application for ad-interim stay and whereby it was prayed to stay the operation of the award passed by the Labour Court till the final disposal of the appeal. The said application was granted ex-parte by the Tribunal by way of its order dated 21.01.98. (6) Thereafter by order dated 25.05.2001, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal No. 01/98 preferred by the respondent. After the concurrent finding of facts and the decision arrived at by the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, the respondent company preferred Review Application No. 64/2001. The Industrial Tribunal after hearing the respondent allowed the said application and passed the aforesaid order which is challenged in the present petition.

(3.) Mr C.B Dastoor, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Industrial Tribunal has committed an error in granting the Review Application. Mr Dastoor has further contended that there is a suppression of material fact in the appeal and that the petitioner was granted promotion after having accepted the order of the Labour Court. He has further submitted that the original promotion was on 07.07.97 and the subject matter of the appeal was the order of the Labour Court and the same could have been pointed out by the advocate for the petitioner in the appeal or review application which has not been pointed out. (1) He has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Dolat Industries v Krishna Oil Industries reported in 2001(3) GLH 665 wherein the review application is rejected on the following observation in para 11: