RADHEY SHYAM CHIPA Vs. MANJEET SINGH & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Ankul Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Hemant Taylor, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) Mr.Gupta submits that in compliance of the judgment and order dated 28.03.2012 passed in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.304/2005, he (petitioner) has been reinstated, but all consequential benefits in terms thereof has not been furnished to him, Mr.Taylor, however, submits that the directions contained in the aforementioned judgment and order have been fully complied with. He has further pointed out that as the challenge to the order dated 06.10.2004 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in case number Misc.I.T.No.166/1993 rejecting the application of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is pending before this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9791/2007, the consequential benefits in terms of the judgment and order dated 28.03.2012, pending adjudication thereof, need not be released and thus, the plea of contempt, taken against the respondents, is misconceived.

(3.) The recorded facts reveal that by order dated 20.03.1993, the petitioner's service had been terminated. An application under section 33(2)(b) of the Act was filed by the Corporation before the learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur for grant of approval thereof. By order dated 06.10.2004, the learned Industrial Tribunal declined to grant approval. As inspite thereof, the petitioner was not reinstated in service, he approached this Court with S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1073/2005, which on full contest was disposed of on 15.02.2005. In the adjudication so made, though it was held that in the face of refusal to grant approval, the petitioner was deemed to be continuing in service and was entitled to all consequential benefits from the date of his termination till the date of reinstatement, it was observed that he ought to approach the concerned industrial court under section 33(c)(2) or the Payment of Wages Authority claiming for computation of his salary to be released.