SIDHARTHA CHAKRABORTY Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 30.7.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby he has dismissed appellant's WP(C) No.3481/2008.

(2.) The appellant is an employee of the United Bank of India. In the year 1984, when the appellant was serving as Cashier -cum -Clerk, the Bank dismissed him from service vide order dated 20.12.1985. The order of dismissal was passed pursuant to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant. It was indicated in the dismissal order that an application under Section 33(2)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act was being filed for approval of the action taken by the Bank. But, reportedly, no such application was filed. Aggrieved, the appellant raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati. The Tribunal by its award, confirmed the order of appellant's dismissal from service. The appellant then filed WP(C) No.635/2001 which was allowed vide judgment dated 6.5.2004. This judgment was assailed by the Bank in WA No.345/2004, but it was dismissed. The Bank then filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court vide order dated 18.7.2005 entertained the same only on the question of back wages. In the result, the Bank reinstated the appellant vide order dated 15.12.2005. The Supreme Court vide order dated 27.8.2007 finally disposed of Bank's Civil Appeal No.2001/2006 by restricting backwages to the appellant only to Rs.2 lac. It is in this background, the appellant filed fresh writ petition for payment of wages from 6.5.2004, on which date, his earlier writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.635/2001 was allowed on the ground that the Bank ought to have reinstated him from that date instead of from 15.12.2005. The learned Single Judge has held that when the appellant was reinstated by the Bank, the matter between them was very much pending in the Supreme Court and there, he did not raise any issue of payment of salary from the date of earlier judgment dated 6.5.2004 of the High Court till the date he was actually reinstated. Had the appellant raised the issue, the Supreme Court would have definitely passed an order, while deciding what back wages he was entitled for. With this finding, the learned Judge by the impugned order has dismissed the appellant's writ petition.

(3.) After hearing counsel for the appellant, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.