IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of approbate and reprobate prevents a party from accepting benefits while simultaneously contesting the validity of the underlying order.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. M.A. Shakeel, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and learned Senior Designate Counsel Mr. V. Hariharan, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2.

PRAYER:

2. The petitioners approached the court seeking prayer as under:

“…to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to connected with the Order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in MP No. 79/2017 dated 17.06.2019 and to quash the same as absolutely illegal, perverse and contrary to law and judgments holding the field and consequently declare that the Order granted to the Respondent No. 2 as illegal and to set aside the same in the interest of justice…”

3. PERUSED THE RECORD:

(A) The counter affidavit of the respondent No. 2, in particular, para 6, 8, 9, 10, 15 read as under:

6. In further reply to para.no. 4 to 10, it is true that I challenged the order of dismissal in L.C.I.D.215 of 2004 wherein after re-appreciating the evidence on record the Hon'ble Tribunal by order dated 16-1-2006 set aside the order of dismissal and granted reinstatement without back wages and a lesser punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed. I challenged the denial of back wages in W.P.No. 17819 of 2007 and the Petitioner Management challenged my reinstatement into service in W.P.No. 14936 of 2006. Both the Writs were heard and a common order was passed by order 29-1-2013, wherein, the Writ filed by Petitioner Management was allowed, thereby setting aside the award of reinstatement and dismissed claim for back wages. However, when the same was challenged in the Writ Appeal. NoS.405, 409 of 2013, the Hon'ble Division Bench by order dated 4-7-2014 set aside the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in the Writ Petitions and upheld the Award of the Tribunal dated 16-01-2006 granting reinstatement. The Petitioner Management further carried the matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and filed SLP No. 29956- 29957 of 2014, which was also dismissed vide order dated 26-8-2016, confirming the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The Review Petitions in No. 3738-3739/2016 filed by the Petitioner Management were also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide orders dated 30-11-2016. Hence the award of the Tribunal dated 16-1-2006 attained finality. Having no other alternative, the Petitioner issued a reinstatement letter dated 9-12-2016 posting me at Madurai. I reported to duty on 19.12.2016 as Sr. Assistant in Gr. V position. The Petitioner Management did not reinstate me in my original place of work, from where I was dismissed removed from service, at Hyderabad. I made a representation to the Petitioner Management seeking to implement the Award without dilution.

8. In further reply to para Nos.11, 12 and 13, it is false and misleading to state that the Advocate Commissioner was appointed without following law. I submit that the Tribunal after the denial of the Petitioner to the entitlement claimed and maintainability of the Petition before it, felt it just and proper to appoint a Pleader Commission under section 33C(3) of the ID Act 1947 r/w. Rule 33 and Rule 34, to come to a clear picture to ascertain the actual entitlement. I submit that after following due process of law, Mr.Y.Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate was appointed vide order dated 16-11-2018 in the MP, as he used to appear in the Tribunal in most cases as Advocate Commissioner to examine the issue and was well versed in service matters. The Petitioner neither objected nor challenged the appointment of Pleader Commissioner by the Tribunal. The Pleader Commissioner after perusing the documents submitted by both the parties submitted report dated 21-1-2019 by only taking into consideration of documents relied upon by both parties, the same was not challeng