DEORAJ BARTIYA Vs. CENTRAL COAL FIELD LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8/10.9.03 (Annexure -9) passed by the respondent No. 3 whereby in defiance of the order of this Court and circumventing the effect of the direction of the Division Bench of this Court as contained in Annexure 8, the order of petitioner 'stermination has been maintained contrary to the directives of this Court.

(2.) THE petitioner 'scase is that he was appointed in the year 1974. In the year 1977 a notice was issued by the Management that large scale of impersonation have come to the knowledge of the Management and, therefore, a committee was constituted to ascertain the bona fide of the individual workmen including the petitioner. Subsequently, a number of workmen including the petitioner were discontinued from the services by order dated 28.2.81. The grievance of the petitioner was that he was neither given any opportunity to defend himself nor the enquiry report was ever served on him before terminating his services. Having been aggrieved by the said arbitrary order, the petitioner had raised the industrial dispute which was ultimately referred for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2. The learned Tribunal after adjudication rendered its award dated 30.8.85, vide Reference Case No. 94/82, whereby it had been clearly held that the action of the Management in terminating the services of the concerned workmen was not justified. It was further held that the concerned workmen including the petitioner whose name stood at serial No. 16 will be deemed to be continuing in service and will be entitled to the back wages and other consequential benefits since the date he was stopped from working. The petitioner 'sgrievance is that in spite of the said award, another order dated 24.3.94 was passed by the respondent No. 2 by which the petitioner 'sservices were again terminated on the same allegation of impersonation. The petitioner challenged the said order in writ application, being CWJC No. 2604/95 (R). In the said writ application counter affidavit was filed. The matter was contested and thereafter by a detailed order dated 6.9.02 the said writ application was allowed and the impugned order of termination was set aside. The Management thereafter preferred LPA No. 540/2002. A Division Bench of this Court after hearing the parties disposed of the said LPA by order dated 1.5.03 with the following directions :

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the Management supporting the said order on the ground that there were other materials which were not considered in the earlier domestic enquiry that the case of impersonation has been established.