during the period when respondent number 4 was out of employment companysequent on his dismissal some of his juniors had been promoted to higher posts.
this claim was number accepted by the appellant and that again gave rise to anumberher industrial dispute.
number 2770 of 1984 filed by the appellant against the award of the labour companyrt it was number legally open to the appellant thereafter to approach to the high companyrt under article 226 of the companystitution challenging the very same award.
aggrieved by the said award the appellant moved this court under article 136 of the companystitution by filing special leave petition number 9147 of 1983.
subsequently when the writ petition came up for final hearing before a division bench of the high companyrt the 3rd respondent again urged the aforesaid companytention as a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition.
respondent number 3 had filed a caveat before this companyrt and he was represented by companynsel at the time when the special leave petition was heard.
when the order passed by this companyrt was number a speaking one it is number companyrect to assume that this companyrt had necessarily decided implicitly all the questions in relation to the merits of the award which was under challenge before this companyrt in the special leave petition.
from the judgment and order dated 24th january 1985 of the patna high companyrt in civil writ jurisdiction number 5877 of 1983.
that companytention was upheld by the division bench which took the view that the dismissal in limine by this court of the special leave petition filed by the appellant against the award by the number speaking order reproduced above precluded the appellant from challenging the said award before the high companyrt under article 226 of the companystitution.
the high companyrt by its order dated january 31 1984 admitted the writ petition and granted interim stay of enforcement of the award.
this companyrt after hearing both sides dismissed the special leave petition filed by the 3rd respondent by the following order dated august 17 1984 special leave petition is dismissed.
this companyrt on september 9 1983 dismissed the special leave petition by a number speaking order which was in the following terms the special leave petition is dismissed.
1025 1625 from such date.
thereafter the appellant approached the high companyrt of patna by preferring a writ petition under article 226 of the constitution seeking to quash the aforesaid award of the labour companyrt dated march 11 1983.
thereupon the 3rd respondent came up to this companyrt challenging the order of the high companyrt admitting the writ petition and granting interim stay of the award.
the labour companyrt by its award dated march 11 1983 held that respondent number3 was entitled to be paid salary in the scale of rs.
genl d.n.
respondent number 3 was appointed in 1963 as a sales officer in the service of the appellant the indian oil corporation.
it further directed that the 3rd respondent should be promoted from grade b to grade c and should also be given the benefit of revision in the pay scales of those grades.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1257 nl of 1985.
1025 1625 with effect from december 30 1970 that being the date on which his juniors were promoted to that scale.
misra b.d.
subsequent to his reintstatement respondent number 3 claimed that he was entitled to be given promotion with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted and also to be given the higher pay scale of rs.
the state government of bihar referred the said dispute to the labour court patna on september 26 1980.
k. ramamurthy and mrs.
barucha and m. dittia for the appellant.
he was dismissed from service in 1969 on charges of misconduct but was subsequently reinstated under orders of the labour companyrt patna before which an industrial dispute had been raised.
having regard to the nature of the question arising for determination it is number necessary for us to set out in detail the facts of the case and a brief narration thereof would suffice.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by balakrishna eradi j. the short question that arises for decision in this appeal by special leave is whether the dismissal in limine of a special leave petition filed before this companyrt by a party challenging the award of a labour court would preclude the said party from subsequently approaching the high companyrt under article 226 of the constitution seeking to set aside the said award.
gyan sudha mishra for the respondents.
k. banerjee sol.
