AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following relief:
“That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued by directing the respondent-corporation to release increments under the assured career progression scheme after completion of 8, 16 and 24 years of service in favour of the petitioner.”
Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Conductor, on daily-wage basis, with effect from 05-04-1980 with the respondent-Corporation. His services were regularized with effect from 12-02-1981. However, the services of the petitioner were terminated on the alleged ground of embezzlement on 14-12-2000.
In an industrial dispute raised by the petitioner, the appropriate Government made a reference to the learned Labour Court as to whether the termination of the services was justified or not. Said reference was answered by the learned Labour Court in terms of an award dated 05-03-2011 (Annexure P-3), holding that the termination of the services of the petitioner was bad in law. In terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner was held entitled to continuity and seniority from the date of his illegal termination, but it was also held that no back wages shall be payable to him. The Court stands informed that the said award has attained finality.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in light of the fact that the termination of services of the petitioner has been held to be bad, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme (4-9-14) upon completion of requisite service on the same post with the respondent-Corporation and denial thereof is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation, by referring to the reply filed by the Corporation, has submitted that the petitioner was terminated for embezzlement and as the learned Labour Court was pleased to order reinstatement of the petitioner without any monetary relief, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of 4-9-14. No other point was raised.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, this Court is of the considered view that in light of the fact that the termination of the petitioner was held to be bad by the learned Labour Court, it is to be presumed that the petitioner was in service of the respondent-Corporation throughout. Of course, it is a matter of record that the learned Labour Court, while ordering reinstatement, did not order payment of back wages in favour of the petitioner, however, the learned Labour Court held the petitioner entitled to continuity and seniority. This Court is of the considered view that continuity and seniority will entail the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme in favour of the petitioner. However, in light of the fact that the learned Labour Court was pleased to order his reinstatement without back wages, the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme will be notional and actual benefits thereof shall flow to the petitioner three years preceding the filing of the writ petition. Ordered accordingly. Denial of benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme to the petitioner is held to be bad. Respondent-Corporation is directed to give benefit of Assured Career Progression to the petitioner as per Scheme. Benefit will be notional as up to three years preceding the filing of this petition.
With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.