Hon'ble JAIN-I, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Brief facts of this intra Court appeal are that workman/petitioner/ appellant was removed from service by the employer/respondent. The employer filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') for approval of order of dismissal of workman. The application was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur vide order dated 06.10.2004 on the ground that no charge has been proved against the workman. The said order has attained finality, however, petitioner was not reinstated in service and was not allowed to work. Thereafter, he preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1073/2005 before the Single Bench with a prayer to issue an appropriate writ holding that petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits and treating that no order of termination was ever passed against him.

3. Learned Single Judge, vide impugned order dated 15.02.2005, came to a conclusion that approval application filed by employer has been dismissed on merits, therefore, petitioner has to be treated as continuing in service and is also entitled for all consequential benefits from the date of termination till he is reinstated. However, the writ petition was dismissed observing that no specific declaration is required to be made by this Court. It is for the petitioner to approach the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) or even the Payment of Wages Authority claiming his due salary and computation can be made by the concerned court/ Authority. The Single Bench has further held that this Court under its writ jurisdiction does not sit as an executing court in such matters, moreso, when the petitioner has sufficient effective alternative remedies under the various labour laws. Being aggrieved with the order of the Single Bench, the workman has preferred this intra Court appeal.

4. Submission of the learned counsel for appellant is that the learned Single Judge came to a conclusion that after rejection of application filed by the Management under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, petitioner has to be treated as continuing in service and is also entitled for all consequential benefits, but refused to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that petitioner has sufficient effective alternative remedies under labour law. He has submitted that judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.N. State Transport Corporation vs. Neethivilangan, Kumbakonam, (2001) 9 SCC 99, was referred before the Single Bench and the same has been referred also in the impugned order, but still writ petition of petitioner has been dismissed holding that petitioner has sufficient effective alternative remedies under labour law. He submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances, in T.N. State Transport Corporation vs. Neethivilangan, Kumbakonam (supra), has specifically held that if the employer refuses to grant the benefits to the employee, the latter is entitled to have his right enforced by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Despite specific law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order, which is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. He, therefore, submitted that impugned order passed by the Single Bench may be set aside and the respondents may be directed to reinstate the appellant in service with all consequential benefits.

5. Learned counsel for respondents supported the impugned order of the Single Bench and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order and other documents, placed on record.

7. There is no dispute so far as the facts of the case are concerned that service of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 20.03.1993, respondents filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document