On September 19, 1963, he filed an application under Section 21 of the Act for a declaration that the order of suspension, the inquiry proceedings and the order of dismissal were illegal and that he was entitled to companytinue to be in service and to salary and other emoluments and in alternative, he was entitled to a sum of Rs.
Thereafter he filed a suit in forma pauperis on August 23, 1963 for a declaration that his suspension was illegal, that the inquiry held against him was illegal and that his dismissal from service was also wrongful and claimed that he should be declared to have been companytinued in service and for a further relief of damages amounting to Rs.
240 241 of 1979 which were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court, on April 16, 1980.
On May 15, 1961, he was issued a show cause numberice and on August 28, 1961, he was issued a formal chargesheet and suspended from service.
The special leave petition preferred by the Petitioner against the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court was dismissed by this Court on December 7, 1981.
Against the decrees in both the suits, the petitioner filed two appeals before the High Court which were numbered as RFA 483 484 of 1969.
The Writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench on May 1, 1989 at the admission Stage.
411 of 1965 for the same reliefs and, in the alternative, for grant of retirement benefits etc.
The petition was dismissed by the High Court on May 29, 1963.
When he was Working as a Development Officer in the respondent Corporation on January 23, 1961, he was chargesheeted for gross misconduct and indiscipline.
The learned single Judge dismissed both the appeals on May 25, 1979.
On August 27, 1962, he was dismissed from service after holding an inquiry.
Against the said decision, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in the High Court being civil Miscellaneous No.
Not companytent with it, on September 10, 1965, he filed an additional suit being suit No.
461 D of 1963 in the High Court, challenging his dismissal.
On February 5, 1964, the Authority under the Act dismissed his application.
The review petitions against the said decisions were also dismissed by this Court on March 2, 1982.
2520 of 1984 challenging the same orders of suspension and dismissal passed by the respondent Corporation and claimed the same reliefs.
It appears that simultaneously the petitioner had started proceedings under she Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No.
On the 18th January, 1991, when the matter reached hearing, the petitioner appeared in person and stated that he had numberhing to add to what he had placed on record in writing.
It is against this decision that the present petition is filed in this Court.The petitioner was allowed to companytest the suit in forma pauperis and the suit carne to be numbered as 538 of 1963.
Against the said decision, the petitioner preferred two Letters Patent Appeals being LPA Nos.
934.70 which the respondent Corporation had admitted as being the amount due to the petitioner as his provident fund.
Both suits were tried together and dismissed, save and except to the extent of granting to the petitioner a decree of Rs.
amounting to Rs.
15,960/ .
22,725 .
1,75,824/ .
