JUDGMENT :

HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. This appeal is at the instance of the writ petitioner and is directed against a judgment and order dated September 6, 2019 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP No. 15262 (W) of 2018 whereby the writ petition was allowed in part directing the concerned authorities to correct the date of cessation from service in the pension payment order.

2. Facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are as follows:

On 16.04.1999 the appellant received a letter issued by the respondent company dismissing him from service with immediate effect. The respondent company moved an application before the learned First Industrial Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the 1947 Act”) seeking approval of the decision taken by the respondent authority with respect to dismissal of employment of appellant. The learned Tribunal rejected the said application by an order dated May 19, 1999. The respondent company challenged the order dated May 19, 1999 by filing a writ petition being WP 1372 of 1999 which stood dismissed by a judgment dated April 25, 2003. The respondent company preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court being APO No. 291 of 2003 challenging the judgment dated April 25, 2003. The Hon’ble Division Bench by an order dated September 21,2006 held that the appellant is willing to resign from service from October 15, 2006 and the respondent company being the employer of the appellant would pay a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- only in terms of full and final settlement of the appellant’s claim. The order dated September 21, 2006 was modified by an order dated December 20, 2006 to the extent that the lumpsum amount payable to the appellant should be treated as retiral benefit. he appellant made a representation before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 1 alleging non-payment of Provident Fund and less payment of Provident Fund linked monthly pension. The provident fund authority informed the appellant that due to the non-co-operation of the respondent company, the Provident Fund authority could not decide the claim of the appellant. This prompted the appellant to file the writ petition.

3. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge directed the concerned authorities to correct the date of cessation from service of the appellant in the Pension Payment Order (PPO) book maintained by the respondent company according to the date mentioned in the order dated September 21, 2006 wherein the appellant has agreed to retire from service from October 15, 2006.

4. Being aggrieved by the portion of the order of the learned Single Judge thereby refusing to direct release of the amount claimed by the appellant on account of Provident Fund dues, the writ petitioner preferred this appeal.

5. Mr. Sarkar learned advocate representing the appellant submitted that the issue regarding payment of Provident Fund dues was not adjudicated upon by this Court in APO 291 of 2003 and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have held that the adjudication on such issue had already attained finality. He further submitted that the Provident Fund dues could not form part of the lumpsum amount offered by the respondent company as the final settlement of the claim of the appellant. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bakshish Singh vs. M/s. Darshan Engineering Works and Others, 1994 (1) SCC 9 and in the case of Otis Elevator Employees’ Union S. Reg. and Others vs. Union of India, (2003) 12 SCC 68 in support of his aforesaid contentions. The learned advocate further relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal and Others, (2019) 1 CHN 256 on the doctrine of finality of judicial decisions.

6. Mr. Saha, learned advocate representing the respondent no. 7 contended that the company has paid the lumpsum amount towards final settlement o