SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern the disposal of W.A. No. 96/2006 as well as W.A. No. 97/2006- as they arise against the common order passed by the learned Writ Court on April 5, 2006.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1-Ashok Kumar Gupta was engaged on daily wage basis for a period of 59 days at the fixed rate by the Collector vide appointment order dated August 30, 1994. His employment was contractual and continued from time to time upto September 6, 1996. The aforesaid appointment was terminated vide an order dated September 6, 1996, thereafter, the respondent No. 1 raised industrial dispute and the matter was referred for adjudication to Labour Court No. 1, Gwalior, where it was registered at Case No. 17/1998 I.D. Act (ref). By order dated February 22, 2000, the Labour Court found that the aforesaid order of oral termination is nothing but an illegal retrenchment and considering the same directed for reinstatement of the respondent with 50% back wages. The remaining 50% back wages was not granted because there was delay on the part of employee approaching the Conciliation Officer. There was also delay in prosecuting the matter before the Labour Court. Against the aforesaid award the employee filed Writ Petition No. 16/2001 challenging the deduction of 50% back wages and the appellant-Special Area Development Authority has also filed Writ Petition No. 1382/2000 challenging the order of reinstatement of the employee as well as the order of awarding 50% back wages. The Writ Court heard both the petitions and vide order dated April 5, 2006 directed that the respondent-employee is entitled for hundred per cent back wages, along with reinstatement against which the employer-Special Development Authority has filed the aforesaid two writ appeals. At the time of final hearing of these appeals, learned counsel for the respondents employee submitted that he has no objection to restore the order passed by the Labour Court for reinstatement along with 50% back wages as after award by the Labour Court on February 22, 2000, he has already been reinstated, therefore, he would be satisfied if the award of the Labour Court is maintained and 50% of back wages is awarded to him. He has also raised an objection that the writ appeal is not maintainable as the writ petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the nature of the order passed by the writ Court was also under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) In reply, Shri Bhadoriya submitted that he had filed the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and it was the employee who had filed the petition only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. His submission is that there was delay on the part of the employee and the Labour Court has committed illegality in granting 50% back wages. The case of the respondent will fall under Section 2(oo)(bb) and will not fall under Section 25-F as has been held by the Labour Court.