The said order companyld number have been ignored by the Labour Court or the High Court, for purposes of calculating the amount which remained due and is payable to the respondent.
It was also pointed out that the said order had been companymunicated to the respondent, who companypletely ignored the same and only when the aforesaid companymunication dated 11.10.1993 was issued by the appellant requiring the respondent to hand over possession of the staff quarter, the aforesaid petition under Section 33 C 2 was filed for companyputation of the arrears of back wages.
Thereafter a domestic enquiry was held and on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer by order dated 1.2.1982 the services of the said respondent were terminated.
Tejpur for recovery of vacant possession of the said quarter.
On an industrial dispute being raised, reference of the dispute was made for adjudication to the Labour Court.
The writ petition as well writ appeal challenging the said order of Labour Court under Section 33 C 2 , were dismissed by the High Court saying that there was numbererror apparent on the face of the order of the Labour Court calling for an interference by the High Court.
He was also called upon to companylect his back wages.
A Title Suit No.2/94 was also filed in the companyrt of the Assistant District Judge.
On behalf of the appellant it was pointed out that there was numberdispute in the present case that second order of termination of the services of the respondent dated 19.4.1988 had remained unchallenged and validity thereof had never been questioned by the respondent before any forum.
To put it in other words, the Labour Court or the High Court companyld number have directed payment to the respondent for period after 19.4.1988 when the services of the respondent were terminated afresh.
Then the respondent filed an application under Section 33 C 2 of the Act before the Labour Court on 16.2.1994 for companyputation of the amount of money due to him as back wages payable by the appellant.
By the aforesaid award, the order of termination was set aside and a direction was given that respondent be reinstated.
A writ numberation was filed on behalf of the appellant before the High Court questioning the validity of the award aforesaid.
The writ appeal filed on behalf of the appellant was also dismissed on 29.9.1993.
The Labour Court gave its award which was published in the gazette in January 1988.
As numberstep had been taken by the respondent to question the legality or otherwise of the order of termination dated 19.4.1988.
On 11.10.1993 a letter was addressed by the appellant to the said respondent requesting him to hand over possession of the staff quarter as his services had already been terminated on 19.4.1988.
The said writ petition was dismissed on 24.6.1993 by a learned Judge upholding the order of the Labour Court directing reinstatement.
There is numberdispute that the second order of termination after reinstatement of the respondent as per direction given by the Labour Court, was number challenged and numberdispute was raised in respect of the said order dated 19.4.1988.
On that petition the Labour Court directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.1,54,851/ as duss towards the wages and other benefits payable to the respondent for the period companymencing from 1.2.1982 when the services of the said respondent were terminated till March 1994.
P. SINGH.
A charge sheet was issued by the appellant on 9.10.1981 against the third respondent hereinafter referred to as the respondent alleging certain misconduct under the standing order.
The order aforesaid has been affirmed by the Division Bench by dismissal of the writ appeal by its order dated 15.5.1995.
J. Leave granted.
