JUDGMENT :

1. With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing. They have no complaint whatsoever about any audio and video quality.

I.A. No.2725 of 2019:

2. The instant interlocutory application is under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 102 days in preferring the instant appeal.

3. This Court, after taking into consideration the reason assigned in the instant application as also considering the fact that instead of dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation it would be appropriate in the ends of justice to decide the appeal on its merit, accordingly, the delay of 102 days in filing the appeal, is condoned.

4. In the result, the instant interlocutory application is disposed of.

L.P.A. No.235 of 2019:

5. The instant appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 23.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(L) No.2143 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been allowed by quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.02.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in B.S. Case No.01/2002 with a liberty upon the appellant-respondent to search out his remedies as provided under the law.

6. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which require to be enumerated read as hereunder:

The appellant-respondent was appointed as an Engineer (Design) in M/s Telco Limited and at the relevant point of time, he was a Deputy Manager in the Axle Division (Planning) of M/s Telco. The respondent/petitioner-company was constituted w.e.f 31.03.2000 and on the basis of an agreement, the ownership and the management of Axles Division of M/s Telco Limited alongwith services of all its employees including the appellant-respondent was transferred to the respondent/petitioner. The service conditions of the employees of Axles Division of M/s Telco Limited on their transfer to the respondent-petitioner remained undisturbed. The Management on transfer of services of its employees, started scrutinizing their performance and in course thereof, it was observed that the performance of the appellant-respondent was poor and his continuation in service would be detrimental to the interest of the Company due to his consistent low level of efficiency and therefore, the respondent/petitioner-company decided to separate his service as per the conditions of appointment mentioned in the appointment letter.

The management vide letter no. HRD/Est/05299 dated 15.12.2001 informed the appellant-respondent that his service is no longer required and offered him three months? salary. The appellant-respondent was also requested to submit clearance certificate for other statutory dues. Another letter was issued on 20.12.2001 alongwith a cheque for an amount of Rs.59,762/- to be paid in favour of the appellant-respondent against three months’ salary. The appellant-respondent requested the management not to give effect to the said letter and sought permission to resign. He also returned the cheque with the endorsement that he would be resigning from the company w.e.f 15.03.2002 which was accepted by the petitioner-company. The appellant-respondent was informed about the acceptance of his letter of resignation on 07.01.2002 and was further advised to take his salary for the period from the date of his letter of resignation till 15.03.2002 and the appellant-respondent was accordingly paid an amount of Rs.59,762/- against the salary for the said period through cheque.

The appellant-respondent made an application requesting inter alia for permission to stay in the quarter allotted to him beyond the period of his eligibility and vide letter dated 08.04.2002, he was permitted to stay in the quarter at an enhanced rate of rent and electricity charges for a period of three months. The appellant-respondent, thereafter, made a complaint under Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 (hereina