Asharam Yadav vs Gwalior Development Authority

Heard.

This review petition has been filed for recalling the order dated 17.11.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 565/2011.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in regard to other similarly situated employees, this Court passed the order of reinstatement with 50% of back wages. Hon''ble Supreme Court affirmed the order against the reinstatement and issued notices in SLP for grant of back wages.

However, in the case of the petitioner the Court has ordered for payment of compensation in lieu of retrenchment. Hence in the present case also the order of reinstatement be issued.

The petitioner was engaged as labourer in January 1996 and he was dis-engaged w.e.f. 1.3.1999 without payment of compensation or without conducting any enquiry. On behalf of workman petitioner, Union raised a dispute before the Labour Court. Labour Court held that Union was not competent to raise dispute. Then the petitioner raised the dispute on which reference has been made and the Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the Management.

The award dated 2.8.2010 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 564/2011 and this Court has held that the termination of the petitioner was illegal because no retrenchment compensation was paid and ordered payment of compensation Rs. 2,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.

It is a fact that other similarly situated employees i.e. Anil Kumar Sharma, (WP No. 1641/2009) Mahesh (WP No. 1778/2009), Rakesh Singh Kushwah (WP No. 3177/2009) and Chiman Rao Shinde (WP No. 5889/2009) also challenged the award before this Court and this Court ordered for reinstatement with full back wages and in other cases reinstatement with 50% back wages.

Against the order passed by this Court, SLP were filed by the Management, Chairman Gwalior Development Authority before the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The Hon''ble Supreme Court issued notices only in regard to grant of back wages.

Counsel for the petitioner filed copy of the order dated 6.9.2012 passed in SLP No. 8942/2012 and order dated 02.3.2012 passed in SLP No. 6737/2012.

From the aforesaid facts of the case, it is clear that the Hon''ble Supreme Court has upheld the directions of this Court in regard to reinstatement of the similarly situated employees.

In the present case, petitioner was denied the reinstatement and compensation was awarded to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is similarly situated and he is also entitled to get the same benefits. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to press relief in regard to payment of back wages.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others, has held as under in regard to maintainability of the review petition after considering the earlier judgments, it is not necessary to consider all the judgments:-

20.1. When the review will be maintainable:

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reasons" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule." The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.

Hence, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma (supra), this review petition is maintainable.

In the present case, two types of reliefs have been granted by the Court, against similarly situated employees like petitioner is also eligible to get the relief of reinstatement.

Hence, review petition is allowed up to the extent that the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No. 565/2011(s) as under:

Consequently, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

The impugned award passed by the Labour Court is modified to the extent that the respondent-workman shall be entitled compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) only in lieu of reinstatement.

No order as to costs.

Order under review is hereby recalled and it is ordered that petitioner would be entitled for reinstatement without back wages.

No order as to costs.