JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh,J.

Heard Shri S. B. Pandey, learned A. S. G. assisted by Shri Deepanshu Dass for the petitioners and Km. Vishwa Mohini for the respondent.

2. By means of instant petition, the petitioners assail the order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the Presiding Officer Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow in L.C.A. No.02 of 2017 whereby the application filed by the private respondent has been allowed and the petitioners have been directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,95,453 within five weeks, failing which, the workman/private respondent shall be entitled to simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the order till the the date of actual payment.

3. While assailing the impugned order, two grounds have been raised by the learned ASG; (1) it is submitted that the order passed by the Central Government of Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CGIT) is wholly without jurisdiction; inasmuch as this Court in the case of Vishambhar Dayal alias Vishmbhar Lal Vs. Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Kendhriya Bhawan & others in Writ Petition No.984 (M/S) of 2014 decided on 19.01.2017 had directed the Assistant Labour Commissioner to decide the dispute as provided under Section 33 (C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Labour Commissioner for the aforesaid purpose after permitting the parties to lead evidence/ documents in respect of their version. Since the order passed by this Court dated 19.01.2017 directed the parties to appear before the Assistant Labour Commissioner but the private respondent made an application before the CGIT, hence the said order passed by the CGIT was without jurisdiction.

(ii) It has further been urged that the CGIT did not grant any adequate opportunity to the petitioners to put up their case and even otherwise in terms of Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, once it was required to be ascertained how much amount is to be paid to the private respondent then it was incumbent upon the CGIT to have considered the case on its own merits and could not merely reply on the version of the private respondent because the petitioners did not file any evidence in rebuttal hence without testing the veracity of the claim of the private respondent it was not open for the CGIT to accept the version of the private respondent. On both the counts the Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity and has also exceeded the jurisdiction vested in law, consequently the impugned order is a nullity and deserves to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the private respondent submits that the private respondent is the workman and has filed short counter-affidavit. Itt has been submitted that initially the private respondent was working as Group-D (Daily Wager) with the petitioners with effect from 14.07.1988 and his services were terminated from 01.06.1989. The private respondent had agitated the matter before the CGIT-cum-Labour Court at Kanpur through Industrial Dispute No.262 of 1990 wherein the termination of the petitioners was held to be illegal and an award was passed in his favour reinstating him with back wages vide award dated 02.06.1995. The petitioners assailed the said award before the High Court in Writ Petition NO.1055 (S/S) of 1996 which finally came to be dismissed by means of judgment dated 18.05.2012.

5. The petitioners further escalated the matter before the Apex Court and vide judgment dated 04.02.2013 the SLP preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed and thus the award dated 02.06.1995 became final.

6. As per the private respondent since he was reinstated with all back wages he claimed a sum of Rs.8,60,351/= but the petitioners paid a sum of Rs.37,406/= only. Thereafter again on 04.06.2013 the petitioners pait a further sum of Rs.2,27,492/=. The private respondent after adjusting the amount so paid to him still claimed a sum of Rs.5,95,453/=.

7. Since in the award dated 02.06.1995 the total am