TRIBHUWAN K PANDIA Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and award dtd. 5. 3. 90 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur by which the order dtd. 12. 12. 82 passed by the respondent No. 2 by which services of the petitioner were terminated was set aside and he was further ordered to be reinstated in service, but on back wages, he was given only Rs. 5000/- and in this writ petition the order by which he was given Rs. 5000/- as back wages has been challenged.

(2.) THE facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under : (i) That the petitioner was conductor in the employment of respondent No. 2 (Divisional Manager, RSRTC, Udaipur and respondent No. 3 RSRTC, Jaipur. THE petitioner's services were terminated on 12. 12. 82. Against the termination of his services, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the State of Rajasthan was pleased to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur (respondent No. 1) to the effect whether order of termination of services of the petitioner dtd. 12. 12. 82 was valid and proper or not. (ii) That the Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur (respondent No. 1) through judgment and award dtd. 5. 3. 90 answered that the order of termination of services of the petitioner dtd. 12. 12. 82 was not valid and, therefore, the petitioner was reinstated in service, but on back wages, he was given only Rs. 5000/ -. This part of order by which the petitioner was given Rs. 5000/- only as back wages has been challenged in this case, and the case of the petitioner is that he should have been given full back wages or atleast 50% of back wages. Hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayed.

(3.) THE pertinent question which arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances just mentioned above, the present writ petition is maintainable or not when the earlier writ petition No. 4356/90 against the same judgment and award dtd. 5. 3. 90 (Annex. 1) was dismissed by this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the present petitioner.