DISTRICT TRANSPORT MANAGER Vs. DHARANIDHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Human hunger has no words to be described. But this case is a glaring example where hunger has generated anger. The peculiar facts of the present case, as brought before us, are that the impugned award was made by the Industrial Tribunal in a proceeding under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act directing reinstatement with back wages of one Dharanidhar Singh, ex -Conductor, Orissa State Road Transport Corporation, Cuttack. Since the award was not implemented, the workman file a writ petition before this Court being OJC No. 6059 of 1992 on 26 -8 -1992, The same -was disposed of by the Division Bench presided by the Acting Chief Justice G. T. Nanavati and Justice P. C. Misra (as their Lordships then were) by holding that there is nothing to show that the award has been challenged by the management, opp. party No. 2. Though power has been filed, yet no counter -affidavit has been filed, nor any material produced before the Court to show that for some valid reason the award has not been complied with. This attitude on the part of opp. party No. 2 really deserves to be criticised, as observed there. For such wilful disobedience, even contempt proceedings can be initiated. However, in order to enable opp. party No. 2 to comply with the award, the aforesaid Division Bench gave one month's time from the date of receipt of the order.

(2.) CURIOUSLY enough, the District Transport Manager (Admn.), OSRTC, Cuttack, obtained an order in the present writ petition (OJC No. 6234/92) on 31 -1 -1994, after disposal of the earlier writ petition, admitting the same on the limited question of grant of back wages. In Misc. Case No. 6031/92, there was an interim order to the extent that the direction with regard to the payment of back wages may not be enforced until further orders.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the District Transport Manager (Admn.), OSRTC, has urged, inter alia, that the impugned award suffers from such perversity where the interference by the writ Court is all the more necessary. He has tried to justify that the appreciation of the evidence by the Tribunal is not proper and there are such defects which ought to be interfered with by the writ Court. But the scope of the writ petition is very much limited indeed. At the time of admission, the Division Bench presided by G.B. Patnaik and B. N. Patnaik, JJ., (as their Lordships then were) recorded with unequivocal expression that they see no justification for interference with the direction for reinstatement. The question of illegal termination becomes a closed chapter after disposal of the earlier writ petition, i. e., OJC No. 6059 of 1992, and in view of admission of the present writ petition on the limited question of grant of back wages. Nothing is left before this Court to make a scrutiny as to the illegal termination.