“15. It is not a disputed fact in present case that, the complainant is class C employee and is about to retire. This falls under situations (1) and (2) as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih referred above, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law, in the circumstances, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. In these circumstances, respondent No.03 is not entitled for recovery of alleged amount which is paid in excess to the entitlement of the complainant, as directed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih referred above. Natural consequences of these circumstances is that, impugned order dated 16.02.2022 has to be termed as illegal, being in violations of mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih referred above, Resultantly, by issuing impugned order dated 16.02.2022, which is illegal, is an act of the respondents, whereby they have engaged in unfair labour practice. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the complainant has proved that, impugned order dated 16.02.2022 is illegal and by issuing impugned order dated 16.02.2022, the respondents are engaged in unfair labour practice. With these reasoning, I answer issue No.01 and 02 in the affirmative.”
