The delay in proceedings leading to a settled benefit negates the need for appeal remand.

J U D G M E N T

The present intra-Court appeal has been instituted under Clause 15 of Letters Patent assailing the writ order dated 12.11.2024 passed in W.P.No.43735 of 2006.

2. A dispute raised by the Employees’ Union on behalf of the workman, V.Panneerselvam, challenging the order of punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. The Labour Court passed an award in favour of the first respondent in I.D.No.41 of 2005 dated 21.02.2006.

3. The appellant – Bank of Baroda preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.43735 of 2006, challenging the said award. The learned single Judge found that, on account of huge efflux of time and considering the fact that the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years was effected long back and that all terminal and retiremental benefits had already been settled in favour of the workman, it would be unnecessary for the writ Court to go into the merits of the matter.

4. The writ Court found that remanding the matter after this length of time would not result in any useful consequence, since the benefits had already been settled in favour of the workman by the appellant Bank. 5. This Court is in agreement with the findings of the writ Court and is not inclined to entertain the writ appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.