JUDGMENT

Oswal, J.

1. The Respondents, after being retrenched by the Appellant-Corporation under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’) on the ground of closure of the establishment, raised a dispute in terms of Section 2-A of the Act of 1947 before the Conciliation Officer (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kashmir Division. As the conciliation efforts failed, the Conciliation Officer submitted a report to the then State Government (now Union Territory) under the Act of 1947, which resulted into a reference of the Government under SRO 244 dated 26th of July, 2004 to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, J&K, Srinagar (fort short ‘the Tribunal’). The learned Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions of the contesting parties, vide award dated 13th of June, 2016, directed the Appellant-Corporation to reinstate the Respondents with full back wages on revision basis, along with other consequential benefits with 9% interest on full back wages.

2. The Appellant-Corporation assailed the aforesaid award dated 13th of June, 2016 passed by the Tribunal through the medium of a Writ Petition bearing OWP No. 472/2017, wherein the learned Writ Court, vide its Judgment dated 25th of May, 2022, passed the following directions:

i. “The impugned award in so far as it holds the retrenchment of the respondents herein illegal by the Petitioner-Corporation is upheld not calling for any interference;

ii. The grant of back wages by the Tribunal to the respondents herein and the award of interest thereupon shall stand set aside;

iii. The reinstatement of the respondents herein ordered in terms of the impugned award shall be applicable to respondents 2 and 4 only; and

iv. The Tribunal shall re-visit and reconsider the case of the respondents 1, 3 and 5 afresh for payment of compensation in lieu of the reinstatement besides the grant of retiral benefits, as such, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for re-visiting and reconsidering the said issue expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is made available to the Tribunal.” i. Whether the Judgment is reportable? Yes.

3. The Appellant-Corporation, being aggrieved of the aforesaid Judgment dated 25th of May, 2022, has assailed the same through the medium of this intra Court appeal with respect to Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 only, inter alia, on the ground that the learned Writ Court has wrongly rejected the plea of the Appellants that after accepting the retrenchment amount, the notice amount, gratuity and other terminal dues voluntarily and without any protest, the Respondents could not have raised any dispute about their retrenchment, on the premise that the Appellants had not raised the said plea before the learned Tribunal. It is also stated that the non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 would not result in the issuance of a direction of reinstatement of the retrenched workmen. Further, the Appellants also pleaded that there was no discrimination with the Respondents, as such, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the Order of retrenchment could not have been upset consequently leading to the re-instatement of the Respondents.

4. Mr Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Appellants, submitted that the learned Writ Court has wrongly rejected the contention of the Appellants that the Appellants cannot raise the plea before the Writ Court that the Respondents cannot raise a dispute after having accepted the retrenchment amount and the other terminal benefits on the ground that the said plea was not raised before the Tribunal. The learned Senior Counsel further argued that in case the retrenchment of the workmen is found to be illegal, then the workmen can be suitably compensated instead of ordering reinstatement of the said workmen. Mr Jahangir, in this behalf, placed reliance upon the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled ‘Bharat Sanchar