Judgment

DESAI, J.:- Deceased Shambhu Nath Mukherjee (workman for short) was serving with the appellant - The Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. (employer for short). By its letter dated January 19, 1966 the employer informed the workman that his name has been struck off the rolls under the provisions of the relevant Standing Order with effect from August 24, 1965. There commenced the tragic tale of the unremitted suffering and paralysing woes of the workman who ultimately in his quest of illusory justice paid the supreme sacrifice of life and alas he is no more.

2. The workman raised an industrial dispute questioning the termination of his services in the manner done by the employer. Conciliation proceedings having failed, an industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court for its resolution. Work out stalling tactics to tire out an employed workman surfaced in the initial stages of the proceedings before the Labour Court. On a contention raised by the employer an issue was framed : "Whether the dispute is an industrial dispute and whether the reference is bad." The Labour Court answered the preliminary issue in favour of the workman and against the employer, observing that in view of the provision contained in S. 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 any dispute regarding discharge, dismissal or retrenchment or termination of service of even an individual workman, even if not espoused by a union, amounts to an industrial dispute and therefore, the reference was valid. The Labour Court further held that the termination of service sought to be brought about by striking off the name of the workman from the roll of the employer is illegal and invalid. Consequently, the workman was required to be reinstated. The employer filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court inter alia questioning the constitutional validity of Sec. 2A. The challenge was to camouflage to iron the entrance door because the same was not pressed at the stage of hearing. After an unsuccessful appeal under the Letters Patent, the. matter was brought to this Court by a certificate granted by the High Court. This Court by its decision reported in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Shambhu Nath Mukherjee. (1978) 1 SCR 591 rejected all the contentions on behalf of the employer and confirmed the award of the Labour Court. In implementation of the award, the employer had to reinstate the workman in service. As the appellant did not implement the award, the present civil miscellaneous petition was filed by the workman for appropriate orders.

3. Upon a notice of the petition being served upon the appellant, a long counter-affidavit was filed raising numerous contentions, but the one which must engage the attention of this Court is that the respondent could not be physically reinstated in service as he would have retired on superannuation from the service of the employer on October 27, 1972. The respondent countered saying that there was no rule or standing order prescribing the age of superannuation for the workman of the appellant. On January 27, 1981 a direction was given by this Court that the employer shall deposit in this Court within a fortnight the amount covering the dues payable to the workman with interest @9% consequent upon the order of reinstatement made by this Court. In compliance with this order, a statement was filed by Mr. S. C. Malik, learned advocate for the appellant that the appellant has deposited Rs. 46,151.60p. with the Registry of the Supereme Court and he went on the record to state that the appellant has no objection to the Court permitting the respondent-workman to withdraw this amount without giving any security. The Court so directed but it is sad to state that the workman had developed such a psychosis and a terrible credibility gap that he declined to withdraw the amount till his all contentions were disposed of by the Court. He failed to avail of the services of the senior counsel whose services were made available to the workman at