CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED Vs. KINU MANJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS letters patent appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1786 of 2005 dated 14th February, 2013, whereby, the writ petition preferred by respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) has been allowed and the order of dismissal from service of respondent No. 1 dated 29th July, 1998 has been quashed and set aside and respondent No. 1 was ordered to be reinstated without back wages. Moreover, liberty has also been reserved with the present appellant. (management -original respondent) to conduct a fresh inquiry in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity to the original petitioner. Against this judgment and order allowing the writ petition, the present letters patent appeal has been preferred by the original respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant (original respondent) submitted that the present respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) was dismissed from the service on 29th July, 1998 because of long absenteeism from 14th August, 1995 till his dismissal. Thereafter, the original petitioner preferred a departmental appeal and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 21st May, 2002 and, thereafter, the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1786 of 2005 Reported in : 2013 (2) JLJR 157 was instituted after approximately period of three years. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the appellant is relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in : AIR 1964 SC 1006 especially paragraph 21 thereof and submitted that there is long delay in preferring the writ petition and, therefore, it should not have been allowed by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the appellant is also relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in : (2012) 5 SCC 412 especially paragraphs 10, 11 and 14 thereof and submitted that the delay due to laches defeats the petition and, therefore also, the petition preferred by respondent No. 1 ought not to have been allowed by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for respondent No. 1, who has mainly submitted that there is no voluntary absenteeism from 14th August, 1995, but, in fact, it was under compulsion. The original petitioner was arrested wrongly for the offence alleged against him and ultimately he was acquitted from the charges by the trial court vide order dated 7th June, 2001. Thus, the original petitioner was arrested on 14th August, 1995 and he was acquitted on 7th June, 2001 and due to this wrong arrest, there is absenteeism and, therefore, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in reinstatement without back wages. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 further submitted that in fact notice was never served upon the workman by the management of the departmental proceedings and, hence also, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal of respondent No. 1 -workman. Moreover, liberty has also been reserved to hold fresh inquiry if the management so chooses and reinstatement is also without back wages and, hence, this letters patent appeal may not be entertained by this Court. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1786 of 2005 Reported in : 2013 (2) JLJR 157 dated 14th February, 2013, we see no reason to entertain this letters patent appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons: - -