K RAJENDRAPRASAD Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Judgment dated 21-10-1991 in S.A.No. 99 of 1987 of the Labour Court, Hyderabad rejecting the remaining 50% of the full back-wages to the petitioner's father as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent No. 2 to pay full back-wages from the date of dismissal i.e., 23-11-1979 till date.

(2.) The petitioner's father was appointed as a low paid employee in the 2nd respondent-Bank in the year 1958. He was dismissed from service on 23-11-1979 on certain allegations of misappropriation etc., after holding a regular domestic enquiry. Against the said order of dismissal, he preferred an appeal before the first respondent. By order dated 9-10-87 the appeal was allowed holding that the enquiry against the workman was vitiated and he was directed to be reinstated into service with 50% of the back-wages. Aggrieved by the said order of the first respondent, the petitioner's father preferred S.A.No. 99 of 87 before the Labour Court, Hyderabad. By order dated 21-10-1991, the Labour Court rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of the first respondent. After the rejection of the appeal, the workman died on 6-1-1992 and the petitioner has been prosecuting the litigation.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that after examining the oral and documentary evidence placed before him, the first respondent held that the enquiry conducted against his father was vitiated and, therefore, the dismissal order passed against him was set aside and he was directed to be reinstated into service forthwith with 50% of the back-wages as he approached the appellate authority with a delay of 4 years 4 months and 10 days and as the matter was dragged on for a considerable period. Aggrieved by the same the workman carried the matter to the Labour Court which rejected the appeal of the workman and confirmed the order of the first respondent directing reinstatement of the workman with 50% back-wages observing that the enquiry held against the workman was vitiated, and that the appellate authority (the first respondent herein) should not have condoned the delay of 4 years 4 months and 10 days in filing the appeal, as according to the 2nd respondent, the workman during the relevant time was gainfully employed.