SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS Delay Condonation Application (IA No. 15527 of 2017) In SPA No. 1014 of 2017 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Kanti Ram Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. 2. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the respondent. 3. There is delay of 205 days in filing this Appeal. The cause shown for the delay is sufficient. Accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed and the delay in filing the Appeal is condoned. 4. This intra-court appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 23.03.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 854 of 2014. By the said judgment, writ petition filed by respondent was allowed and the order dated 02.06.2014, whereby he was re-appointed was set aside. Impugned judgment is reproduced below, for ready reference:- “Petitioner was engaged on 28.03.1990. He was retrenched from the service on 25.01.1992. Petitioner raised the industrial dispute. The matter was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court answered partly in favour of the petitioner by declaring his retrenchment void ab initio but back wages were denied. Against the award dated 10.04.2003, petitioner as well as employer has filed separate writ petitions before this Court, both the writ petitions were dismissed vide judgment and order dated 19.02.2008. However, the fact of the matter is that petitioner was permitted to join his duties vide letter dated 28.05.2008. Thereafter, some dispute arose with regard to his status. Petitioner approached this Court by filing WPSS No.577 of 2013. This Court directed the respondents to grant petitioner the status of Temporary Leave Arrangement (TLA). Special Appeal No.373 of 2013 was preferred against the judgment dated 01.08.2013 passed by this Court. In the meantime, the petitioner was made to sign documents pertaining to his engagement on contractual appointment after regular intervals. Though, the petitioner had already been permitted to join his duties on 28.05.2008, a fresh letter of appointment has been issued to him on 02.06.2014. The Award dated 10.04.2003 has attained finality, pursuant to which petitioner is permitted to join his duties on 28.05.2008 Thus, there was no occasion for the employer to issue fresh appointment letter to the petitioner on 02.06.2014. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 02.06.2014 is quashed and set aside”. 5. Perusal of the record reveals that respondent was terminated from service; he challenged his termination by raising an Industrial Dispute, which was referred to Labour Court; Labour Court returned a finding vide award dated 10.04.2003 that termination of respondent is unjust and illegal and he was directed to be reinstated, but without back- wages. In terms of the award rendered by learned Labour Court, respondent was reinstated on 28.05.2008, however, thereafter on 02.06.2014 another order reappointing him for three months was issued, which was challenged by him in a writ petition. 6. Since, respondent was reinstated in terms of the award by BHEL, therefore, unless his services were again terminated, there was no question of reappointing him for whatever period. Thus, learned Single Judge was justified in interfering in the matter. 7. We concur with the view taken by learned Single Judge. The Special Appeal fails and is dismissed. (Ashish Naithani, .J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, .J.) 19.05.2025 Navin