PUNJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED Vs. N C SETHI EX FIELD OFFICER THE PUNJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the two civil revision petitions, order dated December 21, 1988 passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh in execution of the decree is being challenged. They are being disposed of by one order. Civil Revision No 753 of 1989 has been filed by the Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. (known as Markfed), who is judgment-debtor in the execution, whereas Civil Revision No. 1439 of 1989 has been filed by N. C. Sethi, the decree-holder,

(2.) N. C. Sethi was employee of the Mark fed. His services were terminated after holding a regular inquiry. The order terminating his services was successfully challenged in the civil Court. The suit was decreed on November 30, 1985. In execution of the said decree, the decree-holder claimed arrears of pay with effect from the date he was placed under suspension i e. July 7, 1980 though order terminating his services was passed on January 21, 1982. Objections to the execution were filed by the Markfed-judgment debtor inter alia alleging that another order terminating the services of Shri Sethi was passed on September 7, 1984 which was not at all challenged by him. Thus, decree holder was entitled only to suspension allowance for the period July 7, 1980 to September 7, 1984. Vide the impugned order, Shri Sethi, the decree holder, was allowed remaining pay and allowances (full wages)with effect from July 7, 1980 to September 6, 1984 along with 12 per cent per annum interest. In the revision petition filed by judgment debtor-Markfed, the claim is that the decree holder was not entitled to full wages as he was placed under suspension and thus he was only entitled to suspension allowance upto September 6, 1984 as his services were terminated on September 7, 1984 by a separate order which was not challenged. On the other hand, in she civil revision petition filed by the decree-holder N. C. Sethi. She claim is that, the petitioner should be allowed full back wages from the date of has order of suspension was passed ignoring order dated September 7, 1984 which was void ab-initio. I have heard counsel for the parties.

(3.) THE contention of learned counsel for the decree-holder N. C. Sethi is that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and once an order of terminating services of Shri Sethi was successfully challenged in the civil suit, he would be entitled to full back wages i. e. full salary in execution of the said decree. The subsequent order, terminating his services, of 1984, cannot be taken into consideration by the Executing Court. This order was not made a defence in the suit vide watch Shri Sethi challenged the order of terminating his services. It has further been argued that after first order terminating the services of Shri Sethi was passed, the Markfed could not pass a second order terminating his services. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Markfed has argued that Shri Sethi was placed under suspension and thereafter two inquiries were initiated against him culminating in passing of two orders of terminating his services. The rules of the Markfed do not prohibit either holding of two separate inquiries or passing of two orders terminating the services. Even if earlier order terminating the services was held to be against the rules, the other order remains in force and Shri Sethi was only entitled to suspension allowance from the date of suspension to the second order terminating his services.