ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-State. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondent to reinstate the petitioner to his original post with full back-wages along with all consequential benefits within a stipulated period in view of the order dated 18.8.2004 passed by this Court in CWJC NO. 1958 of 1997. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Grade-III by the Management of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as HEC) and was posted at Turnkey Project Division of HEC. After continuous service of one year though his job was perennial in nature but he was not given the proper scale meant for the post in question. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not paid the admissible pay scale attached with the post and the same was being refused by the Management of HEC, having no alternative, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 434 of 1986(R) before the Hon'ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench seeking equal pay for equal work. Thereafter, the Management of HEC verbally terminated the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.3.1986 without any notice neither show cause nor any compensation as provided under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, was paid to the petitioner. On 11.7.1987, the said CWJC No. 434 of 1986 was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on the ground that some disputed question of facts were involved, which cannot be decided under the writ jurisdiction and it was further held that such facts can be decided by the Labour Court/Tribunal under the provision of the I.D. Act. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner tiled M.J. Case No. 1/1987 before the learned Labour Court, Ranchi for a direction to the HEC Management to pay difference of his wages from 20.7.1982 to 31.3.1986 and the same was allowed on 14.2.1988. Thereafter, in compliance of the said order, only part payment was made by the Management at that time and rest of the amount was paid in the year, 1998. 4. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was given the pay scale of Rs. 481-751/-, which was again revised to Rs. 750-1067/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and thereafter it was again revised to Rs. 1141-1705/-. 4. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was given the pay scale of Rs. 481-751/-, which was again revised to Rs. 750-1067/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and thereafter it was again revised to Rs. 1141-1705/-. According to Binod Kumar Report, the petitioner deemed to have been promoted even he was terminated on 31.3.1986 by a verbal order in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. Thereafter, the petitioner raised the issue of his illegal termination from the services by the HEC Management in Industrial Dispute Tribunal. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ranchi for failure of the conciliation submitted the failure report to the Government of Bihar and thereafter this industrial dispute was referred by the Government of Bihar on 14.3.1990 for adjudication to the Labour Court, Ranchi. The term of the reference was:- "Whether termination of services of Shri Gajendra Kumar Singh is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?" 5. The said reference was registered as Reference Case No. 2/1990. The petitioner as well as the respondent-HEC Management appeared and filed their respective written statements. In the said Reference Case, the learned Labour Court formulated three points for determination:- I. Whether concerned workman is a workman under the I.D. Act of HEC Ltd.? II. Whether HEC Management terminated Shri Gajendra Kumar and if so whether it was justified? III. What relief the concerned workman is entitled to? 6. The learned Labour Court thereafter recorded its finding that the concerned workman is a contractor's man and was supplied to the Management of the HEC. He was not directly appointed by the Management of HEC and as such is not a workman under the definition of the I.D. Act and the dispute is not an industrial dispute between the concerned workman and the Management of HEC, therefore, the reference is bad in law. It was further held that there is no termination of the concerned workman by the Management of the HEC and hence, question regarding justification of the alleged termination does not arise. The learned Labour Court lastly held that the workman is not entitled to any relief. The award was passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi vide order dated 15.10.1996 in Reference Case No. 2/1990. The learned Labour Court lastly held that the workman is not entitled to any relief. The award was passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi vide order dated 15.10.1996 in Reference Case No. 2/1990. Being aggrieved by the said Award, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 1958 of 1997 before the Hon'ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, which was allowed on 18.8.2004 and it was held that there is no denial of the HEC Management that the petitioner was working with them, it is also not denied that the payment of wages was made to the petitioner out of the fund of the Management and from time to time his pay scale was revised and admittedly, the petitioner was made to stop from working after 31.3.1986 by the HEC Management and it was not disputed that the petitioner was not engaged to perform the work of the HEC on 20.7.1982 and was allowed to continue till 31.3.1986 and therefore, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner worked under the HEC Management continuously for more than one year. The Hon'ble High Court while passing the final judgment was pleased to hold the finding of the learned Labour Court as against the legal provision and the same to be violative of the established law. The Hon'ble Court after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1990) 3 SCC 682 , AIR 1985 SC 670 , (1985) 4 SCC 201 held that contrary to the proposition of law, the Labour Court has held that the petitioner was not' a workman under the HEC Management and there was no violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and the retrenchment was not illegal and the dispute in question is not an industrial dispute under the Act. The Hon'ble High Court allowed the said petition and the impugned Award dated 15.10.1996 rendered in Reference Case No. 2 of 1990 by the Presiding Office, Labour Court, Ranchi was quashed and set aside. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his joining report on 27.9.2004 but the HEC Management did not respond to the same and the petitioner moved pillars to posts, made several representations but to no effect. 7. Thereafter, the respondent-HEC challenged the order passed in CWJC No. 1958 of 1997 by preferring an appeal bearing LPA No. 668 of 2004, which was dismissed for default on 8.9.2005. 7. Thereafter, the respondent-HEC challenged the order passed in CWJC No. 1958 of 1997 by preferring an appeal bearing LPA No. 668 of 2004, which was dismissed for default on 8.9.2005. After 9 years, the respondent-HEC preferred restoration petition i.e. CMP No. 442 of 2014, which also stood dismissed on 1.8.2016. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner again preferred representation before the respondent for reinstatement of his services but the respondent for harassing the petitioner moved before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing SLP No. 3359 of 2017 against the order of said LPA but the same was dismissed on 17.2.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed representation before the respondent for reinstatement of his services but to his utter surprise, he came to know that the respondent have preferred a review application bearing No. R.P.(C) No. 1183/2017 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is still pending. 8. It is the specific case of the petitioner that on one or other grounds, the respondent has denied the reinstatement of the services of the petitioner and this Court has allowed the case of the petitioner and quash the order of Labour Court and as such, in view of that order, the SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court also stood dismissed, therefore, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered but the same was not done. 9. Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mrs. Ruby Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner strenuously urges that it is glaring example where the employer has been harassed at the hand of respondent HEC Management. The HEC on one plea or the other has stopped the petitioner from working under the Management of HEC and even the proper salary was not paid. It is only after the order of Tribunal/ Labour Court, which was quashed and set aside by this Court, the petitioner has filed several representation before the respondent-authority but no heed was paid till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the LPA was dismissed in the year 2005 and respondent just to harass the petitioner, has filed restoration petition in the year, 2014. Learned counsel further argues that even the SLP No. 3359/2017 was also dismissed but the petitioner was not reinstated in services and again just to harass the petitioner, the respondent-HEC has preferred a Review Petition bearing No. 1183/2017 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned counsel further argues that even the SLP No. 3359/2017 was also dismissed but the petitioner was not reinstated in services and again just to harass the petitioner, the respondent-HEC has preferred a Review Petition bearing No. 1183/2017 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned counsel further argues that a direction may be given to the respondent for considering the case of the petitioner for reinstatement of the services of the petitioner, subject to outcome of any order in said review petition. 10. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposes the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that in view of the pending Review Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court, no order could have been passed for reinstatement of the services of the petitioner. Learned counsel further argues that may be the LPA was dismissed in the year 2005, when the restoration petition was also dismissed, he could have moved before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing SLP No. 3359/2017 and after dismissal of the same, the respondent-HEC chosen to file Review Petition i.e. R.P.(C) No. 1183/2017, which is still pending. Till the review application is pending, no orders regarding the reinstatement of the services of the petitioner would have been passed and as such, no illegality has been committed by the respondent. 11. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. The petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Grade-III and continuously harassed at the hands of Management-HEC. The Award passed on 15.10.1996 by the Labour Court was challenged by the petitioner before this Court and the same was set aside on 18.8.2004. Thereafter, the respondent-HEC preferred LPA No. 668 of 2004 before this Court but the same stood dismissed for default and thereafter, the respondent did not care its restoration for 9 long years and further no order was passed on the merits against the restoration. The respondent preferred SLP No. 3359/2017 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and that too was dismissed, here also, no order on merits. The respondent preferred SLP No. 3359/2017 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and that too was dismissed, here also, no order on merits. The said SLP was filed against refusal of restoration application, meaning thereby the orders of Hon'ble Writ Court has attained finality and just to harass the petitioner, the respondent again moved before the Hon'ble Apex Court, by way filing Review Application bearing No. R.P.(C) No. 1183/2017, which was registered on 28.4.2017. This shows callous approach of the respondent-HEC. The workman, whose order of termination has been quashed on 18.8.2004 itself, has been stopped from working and as such, harassed for more than 20 years on the ground of pendency of LPA and SLP, which were later on dismissed. Admittedly, the Review Application is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court, but this Court is of the view that since the workman has been harassed at the hands of Management of HEC and as the order of termination has already been quashed by this Court and restoration petition was not entertained either by the LPA Court or by the Hon'ble Apex Court, meaning thereby the order of the writ Court 'has attained finality. 12. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncement and legal proposition, I hereby direct the respondent-HEC to consider the case' of the petitioner for reinstatement in view of the fact that the order of termination has been quashed by this Court earlier and has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and order regarding the reinstatement be passed, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order of reinstatement of the services of the petitioner will be subject to outcome of any order in the pending Review Application before the Hon'ble Apex Court i.e. R.P.(C) No. 1183/2017. 13. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.