RULDU RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were appointed as Field Assistant/salesman with the Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "markfed' ). On 2. 11. 1998, separate charge sheets were issued to the petitioners on the same allegations. Common departmental enquiry was held. As a result of the enquiry, the petitioners were dismissed from service by order dated 4. 1. 2001. Statutory/departmental appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by order dated 8. 4. 2003. Aggrieved against the action of the Markfed, the petitioners filed revision before respondent No. 1. After hearing the parties, respondent No. 1 allowed the revision petition by order dated 5. 4. 2004. Although the petitioners were ordered to be reinstated in service with all service benefits, they were not granted the arrears of pay for the period during which they remained dismissed from service. By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by respondent No. l dated 5. 4. 2004, only to the extent that they are entitled to full salary on reinstatement.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 has filed a written statement. It has stated that the petitioners had been rightly charge-sheeted and had been rightly dismissed from service. The surcharge proceedings under Section 54 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 could not be initiated as the lapses were not detected during the course of audit, enquiry, inspection or winding up of the Markfed. Respondent No. 2 in the written statement has also taken a preliminary objection that the writ petition which has been filed after a year of the passing of the impugned order, suffers from laches and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. T. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that once me order or dismissal has been set aside and the petitioners have been directed to be reinstated, they are entitled to full back wages as consequential relief. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Hari Palace, Ambala City v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, (1979)81 P. L. R. 720. Mr. Sobti has submitted that the relief of full back wages is not to be granted as a matter of right. The plea with regard to the wages was not even raised before the revisional authority. Therefore, the respondents were denied the opportunity to place on the record material to show that the petitioners had been gainfully employed during the period when they remained dismissed from service. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The law has been categorically laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Palace (supra), in the following words:-