PAWAN KUMAR SINGH Vs. MAKHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Letters Patent Appeal No. 398 of 2015 has been preferred against the order dated 7th May, 2015 passed in W.P.(L) No. 3504 of 2010, whereby said writ petition preferred by the present respondent was allowed and the order dated 23rd June, 2010 passed by this appellant was quashed and set aside. Letters Patent Appeal No. 396 of 2015 has been preferred against the order dated 7th May, 2015 passed in W.P.(L) No. 3817 of 2010, whereby the said writ petition preferred by the present respondent was allowed and the order dated 23rd June, 2010 passed by this appellant was quashed and set aside. FACTUAL MATRIX:

(2.) This appellant (in both the Letters Patent Appeal) being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the orders dated 7th May, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No. 3504 of 2010 and W.P.(L) No.3817 of 2010, has preferred these Letters Patent Appeals Arguments canvassed by the counsel appearing for the appellant: Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that gross misconduct was committed by the respondents -delinquent employees in the year 1992, which was an assault upon a high ranking Administrative Officer of the company and hence, without holding any enquiry, taking recourse to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, summarily the services of the respondents were brought to an end on 3rd March, 1992, which is Annexure 1 to the memo of Letters Patent Appeal No. 398 of 2015. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L)No. 1858 of 2004 vide order dated 9th February, 2010.has allowed the Management to take a decision with respect to all consequential benefits of reinstatement and to pass an order thereupon and in compliance of the said order, a detailed speaking order has been passed by this appellant on 23rd June, 2010, which is at Annexure 9 to the memo of Letters Patent Appeal No. 398 of 2015, and on the principal of "no work no salary" the claim of consequential benefit and back -wages was denied. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing W.P.(L) No. 3504 of 2010 and W.P.(L) No.3817 of 2010 . Hence, the judgment and orders dated 7th May, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No. 3504 of 2010 and

(3.) W.P.(L) No.3817 of 2010 deserve to be quashed and set aside. This is the major ground raised by the counsel appearing for the appellant. Submissions made on behalf of the counsel for the respondents: It has been submitted by counsel for the respondents that after order of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the appeals preferred by this appellant nothing much was left to be decided by any one, much less by the Industrial Tribunal or by this appellant. Once the order of dismissal was quashed and set aside, perhaps, there was no need to relegate the parties to the Labour court or Industrial Tribunal in absence of any Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted by the counsel appearing for the respondents that learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.(L) No. 1858 of 2004 has observed in paragraph 11 of the order dated 9th February, 2010 (Annexure 7 to Letters Patent Appeal No. 398 of 2015) that the award passed by the Labour Court is absolutely true and correct. It appears that instead of the word Labour court, it should have been Industrial Tribunal (No.2) at Dhanbad. However, once the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal (No.2), Dhanbad was upheld, there was no need to allow this Management -Appellant to become a judge in his own cause and to decide the issue of back -wages. Therefore, it appears that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing W.P. (L) No. 3504 of 2010 and W.P.(L) No. 3817 of 2010 vide Order dated 7th May, 2015, hence these Letters Patent Appeals may not be entertained.