JUDGMENT
Tapen Sen, J.
1. The Petitioner, Hawa Singh challenges the validity of Annexures P-2 and P-3 and prays for a direction upon the Respondent No. 2, as also upon the Respondent No. 3 to pay him his salary for the period 28.9.1979 to 9.7.1981. By Annexure P-2, the State Transport Controller, Haryana (Respondent No. 2) ordered that the aforementioned period 28.9.1979 to 9.7.1981 be treated as “leave without pay”. This order was passed on 22.3.1982. By Annexure P-3, the Labour Court, Union Territory at Chandigarh rejected the application of the Petitioner under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. The facts of this case are admittedly very short but the relevant facts which are really necessary for being taken note of are that while the Petitioner was working as a bus conductor in the Depot belonging to the Haryana Roadways, his services were terminated by an order dated 28.9.1979.
3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the State Transport Controller. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the asking of the Court, pointed out that the Appeal was filed under the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1952. By an order dated 9.6.1981 as contained in Annexure P-1, the said Transport Controller set aside the Order dated 28.9.1979 by which the General Manager, Sirsa had terminated the services of the petitioner.
4. While setting aside the aforementioned order of termination of the services of the petitioner, the State Transport Controller observed as follows:
“I am of the view that the orders passed by the General Manager, Sirsa are wrong. In this case, the proceedings have not taken place according to the rules and legal formalities have been ignored. I, therefore, set aside the order of the General Manager and reinstate the appellant in service”
(emphasis added by this Court).
Upon perusal of the aforementioned order dated 9.6.1981, it is apparent that the State Transport Controller recorded three things and they are:
a) That the orders by which the petitioner’s services were terminated was wrong;
b) That while terminating the services, the proceedings that were resorted to were neither as per rules nor as per legal formalities. On the contrary, these elementary provisions were ignored, and
c) In that view of the matter, the order of reinstatement was passed;
Upon signing of the Order dated 9.6.1981, the said Order attained finality. In fact the said Order could not have been modified or reviewed in the absence of any application for either modification or for review. Let it be recorded that the petitioner was guided under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 because it was only after the coming into force of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 that the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 were repealed. Annexure P-1 was passed under the provisions of Section 10 of the aforementioned Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. These rules do not contain any provision for review nor does it confer any power upon the appellate authority to review or modify its own order passed in appeal. An aggrieved party has the right to a second appeal only where penalty is increased and thereafter a right of revision has been provided after a second appeal, but in the absence of an application for revision or second appeal, the appellate authority could not have passed an Order that had the effect of reviewing or modifying his earlier order. When a statutory functionary makes an Order under the provisions of a Statute, he has to act, within the four corners of the said Statute and any order that is not within the confines of the Statute becomes totally illegal, without jurisdiction, nonest and vitiated in the eye of law. Consequently, after having passed the order dated 9.6.1981, the State Transport Controller being the appellate authority, became functus officio and he could not have thereafter passed an order reviewing his earlier order.
5. That being the position, the only formality that was required to be undertaken was to give effect and implement the operative effect of the said order dated 9.6.1981 and that was to reinstate the petitioner together with all consequential benefits. This Court is of the view that since the State Transport Controller came to the conclusion that the order was wrong and that legal formalities were not observed, it will only therefore be natural to infer and/or to up-hold that the order terminating the services of the petitioner was, in fact, nonest and vitiated in the eye of law.
6. Consequently, there was no reason to withhold consequential benefits and these in its turn, would include salary to which the petitioner was entitled.
7. However, when it came to implementing the Order dated 9.6.1981, the State Transport Controller apparently adopted a strange procedure because on 22.3.1982 a letter was issued purporting to be for and on his behalf and from his office informing the General Manager that with regard to the appeal of the petitioner, an order had been passed by the same authority who had earlier passed the order dated 9.6.1981 to the effect that the period during which the petitioner had remained out of service i.e. 28.9.1979 to 9.7.1981 would be treated as leave without pay. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State-Respondents, has vehemently contended that since the petitioner did not work during the aforementioned period, the action of the State Transport Controller in treating this period as leave without pay was absolutely justified and in fact, the State Transport Controller, while passing the said order has shown clemency and it cannot be said to be an order that is neither irregular or illegal.
8. Mr. Sindhu’s argument to the effect that the petitioner should not be allowed any benefit on account of the fact that he did not work during the aforementioned period would have been well accepted by this Court, had it been a case where the petitioner out of his own volition, had refused to work. In the instant case, the order dated 9.6.1981 as contained in Annexure P-1 passed by the State Transport Controller is itself a pointer indicating in unequivocal terms that the petitioner was not allowed to work on the basis of procedure which was illegal and wrong. That being the position, it must be deemed that the petitioner had not refused to work and it was not an option exercised at his instance to refuse to work during the aforementioned period. That being the position, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention raised by Mr. M.S. Sindhu, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State-Respondents.
9. As has already been held by this Court in the foregoing paragraphs that the State Transport Controller, after having passed his final order on 9.6.1981, became functus officio and, for all practical purposes, the said order became final, the respondents thereafter could not have attempted to either modify or taper down its operative effect by passing another order 9 months later holding that the aforementioned period would be treated as leave without pay. Consequently, the order dated 22.3.1982 as contained in Annexure P-2 is hereby quashed and set aside and it is ordered that as a consequence of the order dated 9.6.1981 passed by the State Transport Controller. Haryana vide Annexure P-1, the petitioner was entitled not only to be reinstated but was also entitled to have the period 28.9.1979 to 9.7.1981 counted for payment of salary and all other benefits.
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also assailed Annexure P-3 by which the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Union Territory at Chandigarh refused to entertain an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, registered as L.C.A. No. 9 7/27.1.1986 which was filed by the petitioner wherein he had made a prayer for payment of money to which he was lawfully entitled for the aforementioned period. In the opinion of this Court, the Labour Court, Court while dismissing the said application, acted in an absolutely mechanical manner. He firstly held that he had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain that application. If he did not have the territorial jurisdiction then the matter should have rested there at that, but having held that he had no territorial jurisdiction, the Labour Court went a step further and entered into the merits of the case and refused monetary benefits on the ground that after reinstatement vide Annexure P-1, the State Transport Controller has granted leave without pay and therefore, wages were with-held and as a consequence thereof, the petitioner could not file the said application unless he challenged the same.
11. Since this Court has set aside the order as contained in Annexure P-2, it is not necessary to make any further comments in relation to the order passed by the Labour Court, Union Territory at Chandigarh save and except to order that in view of the judgment rendered in this case, the same becomes totally redundant.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed but without costs.