The Industrial Tribunal must consider prior findings on termination validity when adjudicating claims for benefits, ensuring entitlement to selection scales based on continuous service.

Order :

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the award dated 26.09.2016 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in ITR Case No.178/2000 by which the claim submitted by the petitioner for grant of selection scales on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service has not been granted.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis on probation for a period of two years on the post of Conductor vide order dated 20.10.1984. Learned counsel submits that services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondents vide order dated 11.01.1985 against which the petitioner preferred a Civil Suit and the same was decreed vide order dated 08.01.1990 and his termination order was quashed with a direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner back in service.

3. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 08.01.1990, the petitioner was reinstated back in service on 03.02.1990 with all back-wages. Learned counsel submits that after reinstatement of the petitioner, the Regular First Appeal was preferred by the respondents against the judgment and decree dated 08.01.1990, however, the same was rejected by the First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 16.04.1996. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid judgment passed by the First Appellate Court was again assailed by the respondent before the Second Appellate Authority by way of filing Second Appeal, however, the same was also rejected vide judgment dated29.10.2002.

4. Learned counsel submits that against the judgment dated 29.10.2002, the Civil Appeal No.592/2005 was submitted before the Hon’ble Apex Court by the respondents. Learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to deal with such like matters and it was only the Industrial Court who can entertain/decide such disputes. Learned counsel submits that while disposing of the aforesaid appeal vide impugned judgment dated 17.11.2005, a liberty was granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court to the petitioner to raise industrial dispute before the Industrial Court and an order of status quo was passed in favour of the petitioner to be maintained till disposal of the matter by the Industrial Court.

5. Learned counsel submits that soon thereafter an industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner by way of filing statement of claim in LCR No.148/2007, the said claim submitted by the petitioner was allowed vide award dated 27.10.2008 and the termination order of the petitioner dated 11.01.1985 was held to be invalid and the same was quashed and set-aside. Learned counsel submits that in compliance of the award passed by the Tribunal the petitioner has been taken back in service, hence, he is not entitled to get back-wages. Learned counsel submits that in the concluding Para of the award, it was held and observed by the Industrial Tribunal that the petitioner would not be entitled to get regular pay and allowance and he would be entitled to get minimum wages only as the petitioner has raised the dispute individually and not through the Union.

6. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid award dated 27.10.2008 was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10307/2009. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.10.2011 by granting liberty to the petitioner to raise the issue before the appropriate forum as per the provisions of law.

7. Learned counsel submits that, thereafter, the petitioner again approached the Industrial Tribunal for grant of the benefits of selection scales on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service. Learned counsel submits that the Ld. Industrial Tribunal has not decided the matter on its merits but the s