The court emphasized the discretionary power under Article 226 to ensure complete justice in employment disputes despite restrictions from previous judgments.

JUDGMENT

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

1.These writ appeals are filed by a co-operative bank, hereinafter referred to as the 'bank'. The writ petition is filed by one of its erstwhile employees, hereinafter, the 'employee', for short.

2.Going by the entire materials on record and after hearing learned counsel for the bank as also the employee, it needs to be stated at the out set that the employee had a fairly unblemished career until disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on a count that he had been unauthorisedly absent for a period of two months without making any application for leave. He was the Accountant in the bank. The disciplinary proceedings led to an enquiry, consequential findings by the sub committee and ultimately, decision by the employer bank to dismiss the petitioner from service. The employee challenged that before the officer exercising the powers of the Registrar invoking Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. That application was allowed. The bank went up in appeal to the Government and got an unfavourable decision. The bank challenged those decisions of the Joint Registrar and the Government before this Court in W.P(C).36593/03. The learned single Judge dismissed that writ petition with certain observations. The bank carried an appeal as W.A.No.1279/04. The Bench decided that writ appeal on 20.7.2004 holding that there is nothing for the bank to be aggrieved of, as the entitlement of the employee, for backwages, is confined only to three months. The writ appeal was accordingly dismissed. Thereafter, the employee filed R.P.800/04 on 7.8.2004 on the premise that the learned single Judge had, in the judgment dated 4.6.2004, erroneously omitted to clarify appropriately the application of that judgment in so far as the entire backwages are concerned. By order on R.P.800/04, the learned single Judge took the view that the judgment of the Division Bench dated 20.7.2004 did not affect the right of the employee to seek review of the earlier judgment of the learned single Judge and accordingly granted review and reopened the writ petition to a limited extent, for considering the impact of the judgment already delivered, in so far as it related to the award of backwages. Following that, on the same day, the writ petition was taken up and a different judgment was issued holding that the employee was entitled to the entire backwages. The bank has filed W.A.No.954/06 against the order in the RP and W.A.No.977/07 against the revised judgment in the writ petition.

3.In the mean while, having regard to the fact that the directions contained in the revised judgment of the learned single Judge had not been given effect to, the employee filed W.P(C).

30543/04 essentially seeking directions for compliance of the directions issued by the learned single Judge on 8.3.2006. There is an interim order issued in that case in favour of the employee.

4.With the aforesaid, learned counsel for the bank contended that the judgment of the learned single Judge delivered on 4.6.2004 had merged in the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.1279/04 and therefore, the judgment of the learned single Judge was no more available to be reviewed in exercise of any power of review, either inherent in Article 226 of the Constitution of India or on provisions referable to Section 114 read with the different rules in Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was further argued that the writ appeal judgment was delivered by the Division Bench dismissing the writ appeal, being conscious of the fact that the employee was entitled only to three months' backwages and in fact, that itself was the ground on which the writ appeal was dismissed.

Resultantly, it is argued that the learned single Judge had acted erroneously and without jurisdiction in ordering review of the earlier judgment and still further, in granting relief of backwages by passing a further judgment on 8.3.2006 in the writ petition.

5.Per contra, learned counsel for th