Jharkhand High Court
Employer In Relation To Management Of ... vs Anil Kumar on 21 October, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 JHA 1022, 2021 (1) AJR 188
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S. N. Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (L) No. 3745 of 2009
Employer in relation to Management of Food Corporation of India, a
Body Corporate incorporated under the Food Corporation of India Act,
through its Area Manager, Manoj Kumar, son of C.P. Gond, Resident of
Nutan Nagar, P.S. - Civil Lines, P.O. and District - Gaya.
... ... Petitioner
VERSUS
Anil Kumar, son of Ram Parmeshwar Prasad Sharma, Resident of FCI,
Civil Lines, P.O. and P.S. - Civil Lines, District - Gaya, Bihar
... ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK
For Petitioner : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. M.M. Pal, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Mohua Palit, Advocate.
C.A.V. on 08.09.2020 Pronounced on 21.10.2020
Dr. S.N. Pathak, J. In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case was taken up
through Video Conferencing and heard at length. Concerned lawyers had no
objection with regard to the proceeding which was held through Video
Conferencing and there was no complaint in respect to audio and video
clarity and quality and after hearing at length, the matter was reserved for
final disposal.
PRAYER OF THE PETITIONER - MANAGEMENT
2. Petitioner-Management has approached this Court with a prayer for
quashing the Award dated 08.05.2009, pronounced on 27.05.2009, passed
by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1,
Dhanbad, passed in Reference Case No. 76 of 1997, whereby a direction
has been issued to the petitioner - Management for regularization in service
of the respondent - workman.
CASE OF THE PETITIONER - MANAGEMENT
3. The case of the petitioner - Management is that the respondent -
workman was appointed on 04.12.1982 purely on casual basis. The
workman has never pleaded that either any appointment letter was issued to
him or he was appointed against any sanctioned post or his appointment
was made after following any selection procedure or through employment
exchange. The workman even did not bring on record anything to show that
he was having requisite qualification for being appointed to the post of
RC
2
Hindi Typist in Food Corporation of India. On 06.05.1984, the casual
service of the workman was terminated which was challenged by him
before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Dhanbad. Vide
Award dated 08.08.1990, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1
at Dhanbad held that the workman completed 240 days of service and since
he had not been paid retrenchment compensation, so his termination of
service was wrong and a direction was made for his reinstatement. After his
reinstatement in service on 10.05.1991, the workman is continuing in
service on casual basis.
4. It is further case of the Management that on 03.02.1995, a Circular
was issued inviting applications from internal candidates fulfilling
eligibility criteria for filling up the post of Hindi Typist. Though a co-
worker applied for the said regular post, but the workman/respondent did
not apply for the same and chose to raise industrial dispute claiming
regularization of service and got a reference made under Section 10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act vide Reference Case No. 76 of 1997. The said
Reference was decided in favour of the workman holding that the
concerned workman is entitled for regularization as Hindi Typist on regular
basis since 13.12.1991 with full back wages and also entitled for pay
protection from 08.05.1984 and a direction was passed to the Management
to implement the Award within 30 days from the date of publication of the
same. Being aggrieved by the same, the Management has preferred instant
writ petition.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER-MANAGEMENT
5. Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner-management argues that litigious employment has been
deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi reported
in 2006(6) SCC 1 and it has been held that the benefits of one time
reglarisation to irregular workers who have put in more than ten years of
service, cannot be extended to those who are in service only by virtue of
orders of Courts and Tribunals. The concerned workman has not been able
to bring on record the appointment letter nor did he possess the requisite
qualification. The concerned workman never appeared in any selection
process held by the Management. The concerned workman did not fulfil the
RC
3
conditions and criteria as laid down in FCI Staff Regulation of 1971. The
direction to regularize the workman in service is totally contrary to law
making the award unsustainable and the same is fit to be set aside. Relying
on the Judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 789, learned counsel further
argues that the Hon'ble Apex Court has deprecated the backdoor entry in
any establishment. Learned counsel further submits that it has clearly been
held in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) that the Supreme Court and the High
Courts should not issue directions of absorption, regularization or
permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad
hoc employees unless the recruitment itself was made regularly in terms of
the constitutional scheme. Learned counsel further places heavy reliance in
the Judgment passed in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and Another Vs.
Employer I/R to Management of Food corporation of India and Another
reported in (2014) 7 SCC 190 and submits that it would depend on facts of
each case whether order of regularization is necessitated to advance justice
or has to be denied if giving of such a direction infringes upon the
employer's rights. It has further been argued that the law laid down in U.P.
Power Corporation and Maharashtra SRTC cases is not contradictory to
each other. On a harmonious reading of the two judgments, even when
there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice, the
Labour Court cannot give direction for regularization only because a
worker has continued as a daily-wage worker/ad-hoc/ temporary worker for
number of years. When the worker concerned does not meet the eligibility
requirements of the post in question as per the recruitment rules, he cannot
be regularized in the said post.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT - WORKMAN
6. Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned Sr. Counsel argues that the Award dated
08.05.2009, passed in Reference Case No. 76 of 1997 is legal, proper, valid
and is based on evidences on record and no interference is warranted by this
Court. The writ petition is not maintainable and is fit to be dismissed. The
respondent-workman was appointed on 04.12.1982 and since then he is in
continuous service without any break and he is still holding the post under
the Management herein. There is clear finding of the Tribunal that the
Regional Office, Patna had written a letter to the District Manager, FCI,
RC
4
Gaya for appointment of casual typist and approval was given by the
Regional Office on 01.12.1982 on which post the workman was appointed
after interview and the typing test and he is continuing to the said post.
There is no difference between the work of a casual Hindi Typist or the
permanent Hindi Typist and the workman is performing the same, similar
and identical duties to that of a regular Hindi Typist. Learned Sr. Counsel
further argues that earlier also termination of the workman was challenged
before the Tribunal and after the Award passed by the Tribunal, he was
reinstated to the original service with back wages. The long continuous
service of more than 25 years itself is sufficient to prove eligibility of the
workman. Quoting the established law reported in 2001 SC 706, learned Sr.
Counsel argues that long service on the post in question is enough to prove
eligibility/ qualification and as such, workman is qualified and eligible for
the post of Hindi Typist as he is holding the post for more than 25 years
without any complaint from any corner. Learned Sr. Counsel further argues
that in spite of having sanctioned vacant post, the concerned workman has
not been regularized arbitrarily in order to deny him regular pay scale as
also to deny the benefits of regular services and accordingly, the Award has
rightly been passed holding the workman entitled to be regularized as a
Hindi Typist since 13.12.1991 with full back wages and pay protection has
also been given from 08.05.1984. Learned Sr. Counsel further argues that
the workman has been denied regular appointments held in the years 1994,
1995 and 1996. It is own scheme of the management to regularise the
casual workers who have worked for more than 90 days on or before
02.05.1986 for which Circular was also issued, but in spite of that the
respondent was not regularized. One Manoj Kumar was also appointed as a
casual typist at par with the workman and he was regularized as a regular
typist from the year on the basis of the Award passed by the Tribunal but
the workman has been denied the same. Learned Sr. Counsel further argues
that more than 75 - 80 such casual workers who have worked for more than
90 days on or before 02.05.1986, were regularized under the FCI
Management on the basis of Circular dated 06.05.1987 issued by the Head
Quarters but in spite of that, the benefits of regularization has not been
extended to the workman till date even after continuous service of 25 years.
RC
5
While concluding her arguments, learned Sr. Counsel submits that
during pendency of the writ petition, the workman has already
superannuated from his service on and from 23.01.2018 on attaining his age
of 60 years. The typing speed of the workman dated 03.03.2014 along with
order of superannuation has been placed on record along with written
argument dated 02.09.2020. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that in the
circumstances, appropriate directions may be passed to give him retiral
benefits after regularizing his services.
CONCLUSION
7. The Industrial Disputes Act is a benign measure which seeks to pre-
empt industrial tensions, provide the mechanics of dispute resolution and
set up the necessary infrastructure, so that the energies of the partners in
production may not be dissipated in counterproductive battles and the
assurance of industrial justice may create a climate of goodwill. In order to
achieve the aforesaid objectives, the Labour Couts/Industrial Tribunals are
given wide powers not only to enforce the rights but even to create new
rights, with the underlying objective to achieve social justice. Way back in
the year 1950 i.e. immediately after the enactment of the Industrial Disputes
Act, in one of its first and celebrated Judgment in the case of Bharat Bank
Ltd. V. Employees reported in AIR 1950 SC 188, it has been held in para
61 as under;
"61. ... ... In settling the disputes between the employers
and the workmen, the function of the tribunal is not confined to
administration of justice in accordance with law. it can confer
rights and privileges on either party which it considers
reasonable and proper, though they may not be within the
terms of any existing agreement. It has not merely to interpret
or give effect to the contractual rights and obligations of the
parties. It can create new rights and obligations between them
which it considers essential for keeping industrial peace."
8. Be that as it may, having considered rival submission of the parties
across the bar and after examination of the documents brought on record,
this Court is of the view that there is no illegality or any infirmity in the
order passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial
Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 76 of 1997 on the
following grounds:
RC
6
(i) Admittedly the documents brought on record filed by the
Management as well as the concerned workman shows that there
was vacancy of Hindi typist in the Management.
(ii) Law is well settled that there has to be equality in law and
nobody can be discriminated if the nature of job is same and
performance are same or similar, they are entitled for pay protection
and salary on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'
In the case of "Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India
Institute of Medical Sciences [(SCC pp. 239 & 241,
paras 5 & 7] it has been held as follows:
"5. While considering the question of application of
principle of 'Equal pay for equal work' it has to be
borne in mind that it is open to the State to classify
employees on the basis of qualifications, duties and
responsibilities of the posts concerned. If the
classification has reasonable nexus with the objective
sought to be achieved, efficiency in the administration,
the State would be justified in prescribing different pay
scales but if the classification does not stand the test of
reasonable nexus and the classification is founded on
unreal, and unreasonable basis it would be violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Equality must be
among the equals. Unequal cannot claim equality".
(iii) In the instant case, though the workman and the other two
persons who are doing the same and similar job as a regular Hindi
Typist and Casual Hindi Typist, and as there is no difference of
work between them, which is clear from the evidence of M.W.-1
[Cross Examination] and when there is no vacancy as per the
M.W.-3, sanctioned strength of seven and existing 6 permanent and
one casual, there is no reason to keep vacant the post of one Hindi
Typist for an indefinite period. This amounts to malice in law. The
Management cannot take the shelter of the Judgment passed in the
case of Uma Devi (Supra). Since there was clear vacancy with the
Management with sanctioned permanent post, the concerned
workman should not have been deprived. The Hon'ble Division
Bench in L.P.A. No. 516 of 2006 with L.P.A. No. 518 of 2006 has
held as under:
"15. It appears that learned Single Judge has not taken
into consideration the fact that there is already a policy
RC
7
decision dated 6th May, 1987 (Ext. 8 before the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad) and relevant
abstracts, para-4 of the Circular reads as under:-
"4. In view of the above decision of the Board of
Directors, it has been decided to relax the ban on
recruitment for filing in country level Category-III
and IV posts by considering full-time casual/ daily
rated employees who have been performed duties of
regular employees of the Corporation under FCI
(Staff) Regulations, 1971 and who have completed
three months periods of service as on 2.5.1986 and
passes the requisite qualification etc. The casual
employees who do not fulfill the conditions of
appointment for any entry level category-III and IV
posts shall be retrenched by paying retrenchment
compensation as required under the provision of I.D.
Act, 1947. The age limit, however, be relaxed by the
competent authority as specified in appendix-II of the
FCI (Staff) Regulation to the extent of service
rendered by such casual employees in the
Corporation on daily rated/ casual basis. This
decision shall not apply for part time casual
employees and they shall not be regulated."
16. In view of policy decision of the Food Corporation of
India, which is a Govt. of India undertaking, services of all
similarly situated workers have been regularized because
they were fulfilling required criteria of three months service
as on 2nd May, 1986. Present Worker, Shri Jamuna Das was
admittedly working for the year 1972 - 73. This fact has
already been established as per the award passed by the
tribunal and therefore, when this policy decision was
applied for other similarly situated workers, there is no
reason for the Food Corporation of India not to follow the
same with respect to the present worker Shri Jamuna Das."
.... .,.. ... ...
18. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly
appreciated by the learned Single Judge. It appears that
several decision in Uma Devi (Supra) was relied upon by
the learned Single Judge. But, we like to observe here that
the ratio decidendi in these cases does not apply to the
present case. Nonetheless, said ratio should be read in the
context of facts of the present case. No Judge can lost site
of the facts. The fabric of the facts is to be viewed in its
proper perspective. When there is already a policy decision
of the Food Corporation of India for regularization and
when the concerned workmen are fulfilling all the criteria,
including the length of service on or before a particular cut
off date (in the present case there is a condition of three
months service as on 2nd May, 1986), said policy decision is
RC
8
to be followed by the Management uniformly in all cases.
The Management can not adopt pick and choose method in
regularization. Applying the policy decision in few cases
while not doing so with respect to others tantamount not
only to discrimination but also to arbitrariness on the part
of the respondent Management and whenever there is
arbitrariness there is always a breach of right to equality.
Arbitrariness and equality are sworn enemies. When
arbitrariness is present, equality is always absent and vice
versa. Thus, there was already a policy decision issued by
the respondent - Food Corporation of India, under which,
if any casual worker or daily wages worker on or before 2nd
May, 1986 has completed three months' of service, he
should be regularized and as per the said policy decision,
similarly situated co-workers have been regularized. The
present workman Jamuna Das was also fulfilling the
criteria of the completion of three months' service on 2nd
May, 1986 as required under the said policy decision. In
these circumstances, no error has been committed by
Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in
passing the Award dated 6th May, 1997 in Reference No.
122 of 1996. This aspect of the matter has also not been
properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while
allowing the writ petition.
(iv) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Nandan
Prasad and Another Vs. Employer I/R to Management of
Food Corporation of India and Another reported in (2014) 7
SCC 190 : 2014 SCC OnLine SC 132 at page 209, has also
dealt with similar matter and in paragraphs 28, 30 and 34 it
has held as under:
"28. The Corporation challenged the decision of the
learned Single Judge by filing LPAs which were
dismissed by the Division Bench on 6-5-2005
[Maharashtra SRTC v. Kishore Kondiram Jagade,
(2006) 2 Bom CR 340 : (2005) 4 Mah LJ 798] . This is
how the matter came before the Supreme Court. One
of the contentions raised by the appellants before this
Court in Maharashtra SRTC case [Maharashtra
SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari
Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S)
513] was that there could not have been a direction by
the Industrial Court to give these employees status,
wages and other benefits of permanency applicable to
the post of cleaners as this direction was contrary to
the ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench of this
Court in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
RC
9
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . The
Court while considering this argument went into the
scheme of the MRTU and PULP Act. It was, inter alia,
noticed that complaints relating to unfair labour
practice could be filed before the Industrial Court. The
Court noted that Section 28 of that Act provides for the
procedure for dealing with such complaints and
Section 30 enumerates the powers given to the
Industrial and Labour Courts to decide the matters
before it including those relating to unfair labour
practice. On the reading of this section, the Court held
that it gives specific power to the Industrial/Labour
Courts to declare that an unfair labour practice has
been engaged and to direct those persons not only to
cease and desist from such unfair labour practice but
also to take affirmative action. Section 30(1)
conferring such powers is reproduced below:
"30.Powers of Industrial and Labour
Courts.--(1) Where a court decides that any
person named in the complaint has engaged in, or
is engaging in, any unfair labour practice, it may
in its order--
(a) declare that an unfair labour practice has
been engaged in or is being engaged in by that
person, and specify any other person who has
engaged in, or is engaging in the unfair labour
practice;
(b) direct all such persons to cease and desist
from such unfair labour practice, and take such
affirmative action (including payment of
reasonable compensation to the employee or
employees affected by the unfair labour practice,
or reinstatement of the employee or employees
with or without back wages, or the payment of
reasonable compensation), as may in the opinion
of the court be necessary to effectuate the policy
of the Act;
(c) where a recognised union has engaged in
or is engaging in, any unfair labour practice,
direct that its recognition shall be cancelled or
that all or any of its rights under sub-section (1) of
Section 20 or its right under Section 23 shall be
suspended."
.........
"30. Detailed reasons are given in support of the conclusion stating that the MRTU and PULP Act provides for and empowers the Industrial/Labour Courts to decide about the unfair labour practice committed/being committed by any person and to RC 10 declare a particular practice to be unfair labour practice if it so found and also to direct such person to cease and desist from unfair labour practice. The provisions contained in Section 30 of the MRTU and PULP Act giving such a power to the Industrial and Labour Courts vis-à-vis the ratio of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] are explained by the Court in the following terms: (Maharashtra SRTC case [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] , SCC pp. 573-74, paras 32-33 & 36) "32. The power given to the Industrial and Labour Courts under Section 30 is very wide and the affirmative action mentioned therein is inclusive and not exhaustive. Employing badlis, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees is an unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV. Once such unfair labour practice on the part of the employer is established in the complaint, the Industrial and Labour Courts are empowered to issue preventive as well as positive direction to an erring employer.
33. The provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act and the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts provided therein were not at all under consideration in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . As a matter of fact, the issue like the present one pertaining to unfair labour practice was not at all referred to, considered or decided in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . Unfair labour practice on the part of the employer in engaging employees as badlis, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees as provided in Item 6 of Schedule IV and the power of the Industrial and Labour Courts under Section 30 of the Act did not fall for adjudication or consideration before the Constitution Bench.
***
36. Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] RC 11 does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section 30 read with Section 32 of the MRTU and PULP Act to order permanency of the workers who have been victims of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on which they have been working exist. Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] cannot be held to have overridden the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts in passing appropriate order under Section 30 of the MRTU and the PULP Act, once unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV is established."
.........
"34. A close scrutiny of the two cases, thus, would reveal that the law laid down in those cases is not contradictory to each other. In U.P. Power Corpn. [U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh, (2007) 5 SCC 755 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 258] , this Court has recognised the powers of the Labour Court and at the same time emphasised that the Labour Court is to keep in mind that there should not be any direction of regularisation if this offends the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution on which the judgment in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is primarily founded. On the other hand, in Bhonde case [Food Corporation of India v. Union of India, (2005) 106 FLR 1171 : 2005 AIR Jhar R 1962] , the Court has recognised the principle that having regard to the statutory powers conferred upon the Labour Court/Industrial Court to grant certain reliefs to the workmen, which includes the relief of giving the status of permanency to the contract employees, such statutory power does not get denuded by the judgment in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . It is clear from the reading of this judgment that such a power is to be exercised when the employer has indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling up permanent posts even when available and continuing to employ workers on temporary/daily-wage basis and taking the same work from them and making them do some purpose which was being performed by the regular workers but paying them much less wages. It is only when a particular practice is found to be unfair labour practice, as enumerated in Schedule IV of the MRTP and PULP Act, and it necessitates giving direction under Section 30 of the said Act, that the court would give such a direction."
RC 12
9. Though the workman was reinstated but instead of regular Typist, he was allowed to join as a casual typist in the year 1991.
From the evidences brought on record, it appears that there was regular appointments of regular typist by the Management but the concerned workman was neither informed nor any opportunity was given to confirm his as a regular typist. Even after his reinstatement, the Management made regular appointments in the years 1994, 1995 and 1996 but nothing has been brought on record to show that the concerned workman was ever informed or given any opportunity to participate for appointment as a regular typist. The nature of work of casual typist and the regular typist are same and similar. The concerned workman has been discriminated as he was getting salary of Rs.1,400/- though on salary hike, he was getting a sum of Rs.1,890/- per month but the regular typist who was appointed in the year 1984, was getting monthly salary of Rs.8,000/-, besides the other benefits of Earned Leave, Commuted Leave, etc.
10. The similarly situated one Manoj Kumar, who was also appointed as a casual typist at par with the workman, was regularized as a regular typist on the basis of the Award passed by the Tribunal but the workman has been denied the same. Even the Circular dated 02.05.1986 has not been considered by the Management and the petitioner has not been regularized though there was clear vacancies in the cadre of regular typist. Deliberately, he was allowed to continue as a casual typist.
11. The law is well settled that there has to be equality before the law. the workman is entitled for equal pay for equal work. Equal pay for equal work is not expressly declared by the Constitution as a fundamental right but in view of Directive Principles of State Policy, as contained in Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India, "Equal pay for equal work" has assumed the status of fundamental right in service jurisprudence having regard to the Constitutional mandate of equality in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It ensures a welfare socialistic pattern of a State providing RC 13 equal opportunity to all and equal pay for equal work for similarly placed employees of the State. It has elaborately been dealt with in the case of Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union V. Union of India reported in (1991) 1 SCC 619.
12. Considering other aspects of the matter, it is also well settled that the orders of the Tribunal can only be interfered if there is gross illegality and the order is perverse and without jurisdiction. Nothing has been argued nor brought on record to show that the order passed by the Tribunal is without jurisdiction and is full of illegality and is perverse. This Court, sitting under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can only interfere if the aforesaid elements are attracted. In absence of the same, no interference is warranted.
13. In view of facts and circumstances, discussed hereinabove, this Court is in full agreement with the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. I do not find any infirmity or any illegality in the impugned Award. No interference is warranted by this Court in the impugned Award. Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal. Since the workman has already superannuated from his service on and from 23.01.2018 on attaining his age of 60 years, he is entitled to all the benefits in terms of the Award dated 08.05.2009, announced on 27.05.2009, passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, passed in Reference Case No. 76 of 1997 i.e. full back wages after regularization of his services as a Hindi Typist since 13.12.1991 and pay protection from 08.05.1984.
14. The writ petition stands dismissed with aforesaid observations and directions.
15. In the result, I.A. No. 6421 of 2013 also stands disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC