JUDGMENT
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. The petitioner, a driver of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation was chargesheeted and was departmentally proceeded with. Thereafter, by order 07.12.1988 as contained in Annexure – 5, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the service with a further direction that to compensate the loss sustained by the Corporation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- shall be recovered from the dues legally payable to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 07.12.1988 (Annexure-5) before the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1640 of 1993 which was disposed of by order dated 25.11.1993 as contained in Annexure – 9 whereby, the High Court observed that since the question raised in the application involved violation of Certified Standing Order which cannot be determined by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction and therefore, it was observed that the against the order of compulsory retirement, he may raise an industrial dispute.
The petitioner thereafter ultimately raised an industrial dispute.
3. The Government of Bihar, in exercise of its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication before the Labour Court.
Whether the termination of services of Shri Sakhichandra Singh, Driver, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, (Dhanbad Depot) Patna is justified? If not, what relief Shri Singh is entitled to?
Consequent to the said reference, the Labour Court, by impugned order dated 28.06.1998, held that the workman miserably failed in establishing his case.
4. From perusal of the impugned Award, it appears that the Tribunal held that the workman has not come with clean hand nor he had tried to follow the direction given by the High Court in writ application filed by the workman himself. The Tribunal said that the workman approached the High Court against his compulsory retirement but he raised industrial dispute with regard to his termination from the service.
5. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in course of his arguments, submitted that he is confining his prayer only with regard to the payment of the retrial dues to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner retired in the year 1988 and up till now, he has not been paid even a single farthing towards his retirement dues and therefore, he has become hand to mouth.
To this prayer of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Dr. S.N. Pathak, learned Counsel appearing for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation submits that only because the matter was subjudice before this Court and therefore, the petitioner could not be paid his retrial dues otherwise, there is no doubt that he is entitled to get the retrial dues.
6. In this view of the matter, this application is being disposed of with a direction to respondent Bihar State Road Transport Corporation to pay entire legal and retrial dues with admissible interest, to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
In view of the fact that the petitioner was simply a Driver and he has already superannuated in 1988 i.e. about eighteen years ago and he has not been paid his retiral dues till date and as such on sympathetic consideration the direction for recovery of Rs. 25,000/- from the legally payable due of the petitioner as directed in Annexure-5, the impugned order, the same is hereby set aside and it is directed that the said amount shall not be recovered from the legal dues of the petitioner.
There shall be no order as to costs.