G GUNASEKARAN Vs. CHAIRMAN PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in his proceeding No.E2/3478/1999/M dated 10.9.2001 and the proceeding of the second respondent in No.A6/5337/2001/M dated 20.10.2001 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay 25% of backwages with effect from 18.4.1990 to 28.4.1999 with attendant benefits on the past service, leave and monetary effect for promotion etc., with retrospective effect.

(2.) THE writ petitioner, Lascar Grade-II was reinstated by order of the Industrial Tribunal in its award dated 20.8.1998 in I.D.No,56 of 1995. THE Tribunal ordered that on reinstatement, the petitioner will be entitled to 25% backwages and other attendant benefits. It appears that the petitioner and the second respondent entered into a Memorandum of Settlement in terms of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 whereby and whereunder the petitioner agreed to settle his claim by accepting 15% backwages. THE said amount was paid by the second respondent and was received by the petitioner. A copy of Memorandum of Settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been furnished to this Court and it is not disputed. THEre is no specific clause in the Settlement as to how the pay will be fixed on reinstatement.

(3.) THE interpretation given by the respondents to the Memorandum of Settlement entered in terms of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act on 3.4.1999, particularly clause (e) as above does not state that the petitioner will be treated as a new recruit on reinstatement. In any event, the award of the Industrial Tribunal directing the reinstatement of the petitioner has been accepted by the respondents and the petitioner joined duty on and from 29.4.1999. He has been paid the salary as a Lascar Grade-II as applicable. THEre is no justification to treat the petitioner as a new recruit when the award of the Industrial Tribunal has been accepted with regard to reinstatement. THE settlement is only with regard to quantum of backwages. THEre is no basis for the respondents to issue the memo and the recovery order treating the petitioner as new recruit and the proceedings are bereft of reasons. In any event, both in memo dated 10.9.2001 and in the recovery order dated 20.10.1991 which are under challenge no reason has been stated as to why the petitioner has been treated as new recruit. In such circumstances, memo and the order for recovery sans reasons is an arbitrary exercise of authority. This court is, therefore, inclined to interfere with the proceedings under challenge.