PANDAWA DEVI Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application has been filed for modification of order dated 24.06.2016 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3029 of 2005.

(2.) Heard Mr. Chandra Shekhar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Das being assisted by Ms. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court knocked the door of this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 3029 of 2016 for quashing order of termination dated 19.10.2004 as also the appellate order dated 05.05.2005 and further for reinstatement on the post and capacity, the petitioner was working. It has been submitted that though the said writ application was disposed of vide order dated 24.06.2016 quashing the impugned orders and direction was issued to pass appropriate order on the quantum of punishment, however, the same appears to be apparent error in view of the conclusion arrived at by the Hon'ble Court at paragraphs 8 of the judgment dated 24.06.2016. In elaboration, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while passing the judgment dated 24.06.2016 in W.P. (S) No. 3029 of 2005, this Hon'ble Court observed at paragraph 8 (iv) opined that "in the meantime, 11 years have been elapsed. No wilful purpose will be served to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service", which ought to be deleted as even after quashing the impugned orders and declaring the same to be bad in law order of reinstatement ought to have been passed. Further, at Paragraph 8 (ii) it has been observed that "Although, the term prejudice has not been pleaded in the writ application, but certainly it is one of the infirmity, which has vitiated the proceeding., which may be deleted" In this regard, it has been submitted that that in that where proceeding is vitiated by any reasons/infirmities, in that eventualities the petitioner ought to have been given relief for reinstatement with full back wages. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of H.M.T Limited Vs. Labour Court, Ernakulam & Ors as, (1994) 2 SCC 38; and in the case of Devinder Singh vs Municipal Council, Sanaur, (2011) AIR SC 2532 as also in the case of Vikramaditya Pandey Vs. Industrial Tribunal & Anr, (2001) LabIC 646.