PRANAYA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the order dated 31.7.2007 passed in W.P.(L) No.2933 of 2004, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition setting aside the award dated 26.08.2003 passed in favour of the appellants.

(2.) Appellant no.1, Pranay Kumar Srivastava was employed as Chowkidar between 1.4.1981 and 7.12.1996, 2ndnd appellant Gopal Jha worked as Electrician between 1.11.1982 and 7.12.1996 and 3rdrd appellant-Rajbali Pal worked as Chowkidar between 1.11.1978 and 7.12.1996. The appellant was said to be continuously working in the Minor Irrigation Division in the State of Jharkhand. On the basis of the letter of the Executive Engineer, the State Government passed an order on 3.01.1996 terminating the service of the appellants and some others. Thereafter, vide letter dated 7.12.1996 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation Sub-Division, Jamshedpur the services of the appellants were terminated. The appellants challenged the order of termination dated 3.01.1996 and 7.12.1996 by filing writ petition, CWJC No. 4095 of 1996. By order dated 7.01.1997, the writ petition was disposed of with an observation that the stigma regarding gross indiscipline was withdrawn however, the termination order would remain in vogue till the matter is resolved under the Industrial Disputes Act and a liberty was given to the appellants to raise the same before the appropriate forum.

(3.) The appellants raised industrial dispute and vide notification dated 28.3.1998, the State Government referred the matter to Labour Court, Jamshedpur, with the terms of reference "whether the termination of the services of the appellants is justified and if not, to what relief they are entitled". The Labour Court passed the award on 26.8.2003 and held that the termination of services of the appellants is unjustified. Being aggrieved by the said award, the Management preferred appeal in W.P.(L) No.2933 of 2004. By order dated 31.7.2007, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition setting aside the award. Learned Single Judge held that if the appellants have applied against the advertisement issued by the Department and if they are found otherwise eligible, setting aside of the award will not stand in the way of the appellants in considering their cases