AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—The petitioner has filed this review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. seeking review of the order in W.A. No. 1648/2006 dated 29.2.2012.
The petitioner was dismissed from the service of the respondent on 29.7.1998. He challenged the said order u/s 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in I.D.A. No. 57/1998 before the Labour Court, Chikkamagalur. The Labour Court dismissed the petition on 10.4.2011. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing a Writ Petition in No. 39038/2011. The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition on 19.7.2006. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in W.A. No. 1648/2006. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 29.2.2012 has allowed the writ appeal. The Division Bench has further held that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement without backwages. Since he has retired, he should be paid terminal benefits in respect of reinstatement.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has retired on 28.2.2013. He was in service while the order was passed by the Division Bench. Since the order of dismissal has been set aside by the Division Bench, petitioner is entitled for backwages from the date of termination.
On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that petitioner has retired on 28.2.2013. He had not retired when the order-was passed by the Division Bench. It is further contended that petitioner has not worked with the respondent from the date of termination till the date of his reinstatement pursuant to the order of the Division Bench. That is why the Division Bench has directed reinstatement without backwages. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. She prays for dismissal of the review petition.
The Division Bench while allowing the writ appeal has held that the appellant since retired should be paid terminal benefits in respect of reinstatement. It is an admitted fact that he had not retired when the order was passed by the Division Bench on 29.2.2012. He has retired on 28.2.2013. Therefore, his terminal benefits should be paid after his retirement if it has not been paid so far.
In so far as backwages are concerned, the petitioner had not worked with the respondent from the date of his termination till the date of reinstatement. The Division Bench has therefore held that he is not entitled for backwages till the date of his reinstatement. We do not find any ground to review the order dated 29.2.2012. No costs.