Vijender Jain, J.— Rule.
As only question of law is involved, there is no need for the counter affidavit to be filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the petition suffers from delay and latches. Another submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that the order passed by the tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not on merit. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner has cited T.N State Transport Corporation v. Neethivilangan, Kumbakonam., (2001) 9 SCC 99 and Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited v. Ram Gopal Sharma, JT 2002 (1) SC 182.
2. In view of both the authorities cited by learned counsel for the petitioner it is no more res integra that once under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act the petition has been dismissed and restoration application filed by the respondent was also dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal on 19.10.2000 The workman was entitled for reinstatement with consequential benefits. The first order passed by the Industrial Tribunal on the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was on 30.6.1997
3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, the respondent preferred a civil writ petition in this Court which was also dismissed on 19.4.2001 Learned counsel for the petitioner says that petitioner served a legal notice dated 14.6.2001 on the respondent and in July, 2001 this writ petition was filed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be made to wait indefinitely by taking the argument that the order was not made on merit.
4. Following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid two authorities, I quash the impugned order of termination dated 29.9.1994 being illegal. The petitioner shall be entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.
5. Rule is made absolute. Petition stands disposed of CM. 8738/2001 also stands disposed of.