Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 13 (GAU)

Ajoy Kumar Barua v. Assam State Electricity Board

2004-01-07

AFTAB H.SAIKIA, P.P.NAOLEKAR

body2004
JUDGMENT P.P. Naolekar, C.J. 1. The facts in brief are that the petitioner/appellant was an employee of Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB). His service was terminated with effect from 16th January, 1975. The appellant raised an Industrial Dispute and the matter was referred to the Labour Court by the State Government vide Notification No. GLR.528/86/4 dated 21.11.1986. The Labour Court vide its award dated 24.8.1993 directed reinstatement of the appellant/petitioner with full back wages. As the ASEB had not reinstated the petitioner as per direction issued by the Labour Court, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing a writ petition (CR 805/95) for enforcement of the order of the Labour Court. 2. It is the case of the respondents that the termination order dated 16.1.1975 issued against the appellant/petitioner was cancelled. The appellant was charge-sheeted and another departmental enquiry was held and the charges being found to be proved the service of the appellant was terminated with effect from 1.5.1975. The respondents sought approval of the Industrial Tribunal under Section 32(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act and the Tribunal vide its order dated 3.8.1982 gave approval of the order of termination of service of the appellant. However, without understanding the factual implication, the State Government after 10 years has made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal in regard to the termination of service of the appellant with effect from 16.1.1975 and the Labour Court has set aside the order of termination directing reinstatement of the appellant in service. 3. The case of the respondents (ASEB) is that since the said order of termination is no longer in existence on being cancelled, no effect can be give to it, particularly so, when the appellant's service has been terminated after holding departmental enquiry by order dated 1.5.1975. On the aforesaid facts, the learned Single Judge has found that since the order dated 16.1.1975 no longer remained in force, the Labour Court setting aside the order and giving direction for reinstatement of the appellant/petitioner was not necessary as the order of termination dated 16.1.1975 has already been cancelled. On the aforesaid facts, the learned Single Judge has found that since the order dated 16.1.1975 no longer remained in force, the Labour Court setting aside the order and giving direction for reinstatement of the appellant/petitioner was not necessary as the order of termination dated 16.1.1975 has already been cancelled. In other words, according to the learned Single Judge all the procedures an proceedings taken up by the Labour Court regarding termination of the petitioner/appellant by order dated 16.1.1975 was a futile exercise as the order itself being cancelled by the respondents/ASEB and fresh order after departmental enquiry having been issued terminating the service of the petitioner by order dated 1.5.1975. On the aforesaid ground the learned Single Judge has refused to grant the relief to the petitioner/appellant for enforcement of the order passed by the Labour Court on 21.11.1986, which is the result of setting aside the order dated 16.1.1975 by the Labour Court. 4. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. There is no question of enforceability of the order passed by the Labour Court, which does not remain in existence on account of the fact that the employer (ASEB) itself withdrew it. There is nothing on record to show that the subsequent order passed by the respondents on 1.5.1975 after conducting the departmental enquiry has been challenged by the petitioner/appellant and that being the case, the writ appeal is without any substance and is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 5. However, it is made clear that the appellant/petitioner would be entitled for his salary etc. for the period from 16.1.1975 to 1.5.1975, if the salary has not been paid as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. The respondent (ASEB) shall pay the same within a period of one month from today