R S R T C Vs. BRIJ KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 28. 3. 1984 the suit of plaintiff- respondent for declaration that his order of termination dated 9. 10. 1979 Exhibit-2 may be declared to be void was decreed by the learned Trial Court and an amount of Rs. 17,455/- towards back wages for the period 9. 10. 1979 to 31. 7. 1982 was also decreed. The said judgment and decree was challenged in this appeal by the R. S. R. T. C.

(2.) WHEN the matter came up before this court on 13. 8. 1985, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that stay application has become infructuous as the decretal amount which was deposited by the appellants has been withdrawn by him. A prayer was made by the appellants at that stage remaining part of the decree may be stayed which was declined by this court with liberty to the appellants that in case, they so desire, they may move an application for maintenance of status quo. With the aforesaid observation, the stay application was dismissed by this court. During the pendency of this appeal, the respondent was reinstated w. e. f. 1. 7. 1988 as is evident from the order dated 24. 4. 2003 which was produced before the court and the amount with respect to the back wages and allowances has also been settled by the appellants. Respondent workman has been continuously in service w. e. f. 1. 7. 1988 after his reinstatement pursuant to the decree of the learned Trial Court. The order of termination of the respondent workman was passed in view of the fact that he stood convicted of a criminal charge by the order dated 5. 10. 1972 which resulted into passing of order of his termination on 9. 10. 1979. The respondent workman filed a revision against the said order of conviction, which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge on 18. 2. 1981. Therefore, the ground on which the termination of respondent workman was made viz. , that of being convicted of a criminal charge having been removed the respondent workman was entitled to be reinstated. It would be noteworthy to state that in the revisional order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the case was remanded for re-trial and after facing the trial, by judgment dated 27. 7. 1982, the respondent workman was acquitted of the criminal charge. His order of acquittal was not challenged in any proceedings nor any departmental enquiry with regard to the charge against the respondent workman was made by the appellant Corporation.