Execution cannot proceed after the underlying tribunal order is set aside by the High Court.

The applicants, Jawahar Lal and Shyam, were working as casual labourers in the office of the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Allahabad.

In O.A. No. 305 of 2014, the Tribunal had, by order dated 12 January 2022, quashed the respondents’ order dated 6/9 September 2013 and directed the respondents to grant the applicants temporary status retrospectively under the Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme of Government of India, 1993, along with consequential benefits.

The respondents challenged that order in Writ A No. 22170 of 2022, Union of India v. Jawahar Lal. By judgment dated 30 November 2023, the High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and remitted the matter to the competent authority to determine, separately for each individual, the date of initial engagement and the number of days worked as on 1 September 1993, after providing notice and an opportunity to respond.

The applicants thereafter filed the present Execution Application seeking enforcement of the Tribunal’s order dated 12 January 2022.

The respondents filed a compliance affidavit stating that, pursuant to the High Court’s directions, they had passed reasoned and speaking orders in respect of the concerned individuals, with the applicants’ names appearing at Serial Nos. 27 and 28.

The applicants had also earlier instituted Contempt Petition No. 125 of 2022, which was dismissed on 7 February 2024.

Whether the Tribunal could direct execution of its order dated 12 January 2022 after that order had been set aside by the High Court?

Whether any further execution relief could be granted when the respondents had passed fresh, reasoned orders in compliance with the High Court’s judgment dated 30 November 2023?

The Tribunal applied the principle that an order set aside by a superior court ceases to have operative effect and cannot thereafter be enforced through execution proceedings.

It also applied the binding directions of the High Court in Writ A No. 22170 of 2022, which required the competent authority to determine each individual’s eligibility under the 1993 Temporary Status Scheme after issuing notice, disclosing the proposed basis of decision, allowing a reply, and passing a reasoned order; eligible persons were to be granted temporary status prospectively.

The Tribunal further recognised that the rights of the parties were to be governed by the fresh orders passed by the competent authority pursuant to the High Court’s remand.

The Tribunal found that the foundation of the Execution Application—the order dated 12 January 2022—no longer subsisted because it had been expressly set aside by the High Court.

Consequently, there was no enforceable Tribunal order capable of execution.

The High Court had instead remitted the matter for individual determination of the applicants’ initial engagement dates and the number of days worked as on 1 September 1993, subject to notice and opportunity of hearing.

Since the respondents had passed fresh reasoned and speaking orders in compliance with that remand, the Tribunal held that no further execution direction could be issued.

The Tribunal therefore concluded that it had no continuing role in enforcing the quashed order dated 12 January 2022.

It held that the order dated 12 January 2022, having been set aside by the High Court, could not be executed, and that the respondents’ subsequent reasoned orders constituted compliance with the High Court’s directions.

Accordingly, Execution Application No. 4681 of 2024 was dropped, the notices issued to the respondents were discharged, and all pending miscellaneous applications were deemed disposed of. There was no order as to costs.