The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of exhausting alternate remedies and the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the 1st respondent pertaining to the impugned order passed in Ref.No.MDU/Legal/W.P.No.1514/2017 dated 23.08.2019 quash the same and consequently directing the respondents 1 to 4 to implement the High Court orders and also consequently direct the above respondents to implement the resolution passed in the 223rd Board Meeting, also the Office Note approved by the Management and further, the 3rd respondent's legal department (Writs) letter in ref. Legal/W.P.No.18300 of 2001 dated 05.04.2012., viz.,

1. To implement and sanction the annual increments in every years from the dismissal date to the reinstatement date.

2. To implement and sanction to pay the review benefits and 10 years weightage increments in the whole service period and etc., properly.

3. To change the pay revision from old basic pay to the new basic pay in terms of pay revision in terms of Wage Settlement under Sub- Section 12(3) of the I.D. Act with attendant benefits with retrospective from 23.12.1994 to July 2005 to the petitioner.

4. To direct the respondents to revise the terminal benefits namely gratuity, earned leave salary, commuted value of pension and monthly pension based on the pay revision given and settlement from the date of his retirement to till the date of actual payment and disburse the difference amounts for the same to him together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum payable within the stipulated time limit that may be fixed by this Court.)

The order passed by the respondent Transport Corporation in proceedings dated 23.08.2019 informing him about his eligibility for gratuity and pensionary benefits is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Driver in the respondent transport corporation and retired from service on 31.05.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation.

3. The writ petitioner was dismissed from service due to an accident made by him against the private bus on 23.12.1994. Challenging the order of dismissal, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the labour Court and labour Court passed an award in I.D.No.189/1995 in favour of the writ petitioner for reinstatement. The petitioner was reinstated into service and thereafter allowed to retire from service.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the terminal and pensionary benefits due to the petitioner has not been settled fully. However, it was settled partially. The writ petitioner earlier filed W.P. (MD) No.1514/2017 and this Court passed an order to consider the representation and based on the orders of this Court dated 19.03.2019, the present impugned order has been passed.

5. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that service particulars of the petitioner has been taken into consideration and accordingly, the eligible gratuity amount and other pensionary benefits are settled in favour of the writ petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised an objection that the calculation made by the respondent corporation is incorrect. The petitioner has given a calculation and as per the calculation of the petitioner, the amounts are to be settled.

7. This Court is of the considered opinion that it is a disputed facts between the parties. What exactly the correct amount of terminal and pensionary benefits to be settled to an employee is to be decided with reference to the service records and other particulars, as the petitioner was dismissed from service and reinstated pursuant to the award of the labour Court.

8. Such disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It requires examination of documents in original and further verification of service records are warranted. Power of judicial review cannot be extended for the purpose of adjudication to such disputed issues in writ proceedings. This e