HAFIZUDDIN Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order datea December 4, 2000 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 513 of 1997.

(2.) The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was a Mobile Booking Clerk with effect from January 15, 1981 and continued in the said post till March 31, 1987. The services were terminated from April 1, 1987. The petitioner moved an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal and vide its judgment and order dated February 22, 1989 allowed the petition and quashed the order of termination. On the basis of the judgment of the Tribunal the petitioner was reinstated and join his duties on November 22, 1989 but he was not being paid regular pay scale according to the pay scale, which becomes entitled as regular employee. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid action of t he resp ondent No, 2 the petitioner filed a reference application under Section 15 sub-section (2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. A case was registered as Case No. 114 of 1990. The written statement on behalf of the respondent No. 2 was filed and ultimately the reference was allowed by its order dated March 30, 1995. A restoration application was filed by the respondent No. 2 on August 24, 1995 instead of filing an appeal under Section 17 of the Act. But no interim order was granted. The respondent No. 2 approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for obtaining the interim order but ultimately on November 8, 1996 the said application was dismissed and the said order was vacated then the respondent No. 2 filed a Writ petition before this Court which was numbered as Writ Petition No. 11077 of 1997 seeking a direction to the authority under the Payment of Wages Act to decide the restoration application dated August 24, 1995. This Court on April 1, 1997 had passed an order directing the authority to decide the application within a period of three months. It was further directed that the amount deposited in pursuance of the order dated March 30, 1995 shall not be paid to the respondent No. 2.

(3.) The respondent No. 2 without making any effort to decide the said restoration application or to file an appeal made an application before the Administrative Tribunal and the High Court only to get the interim order. Thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act supported by an application under Section 5 on July 1, 1997. It is submitted that the restoration application filed by the respondent was dismissed on July 5, 1997. The appellate authority exercising the jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 has considered the application of the respondent No. 2. Without application of mind and without considering the evidence on record illegally allowed the application for condonation of delay vide its order dated December 4, 2000.