Abbas Ali vs The Divisional Controller NWKRTC

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner in W.P. No. 80260/2011 is the workman while the petitioner in W.P. No. 83785/2011 is the management. The parties are referred to in the same fashion for the purpose of convenience and clarity since their rank is different in both the petitions.

The workman is before this Court assailing the order dated 02.09.2010 passed in Application No. 9/2009 under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ''the Act'') in so far as the Labour Court not granting the interest on the amount determined by it as payable to the workman.

The management on the other hand is assailing the order dated 02.09.2010 in so far as the quantum of the amount that is ordered to be paid therein by contending that if the calculations are taken into consideration, the amount as depicted as the salary payable for the period 01.07.1997 to 25.06.1999 as the difference at Rs. 1,31,058/- alone is payable and not the amount as has been determined by the Labour Court.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the petition papers. The Labour Court at the first instance in the award passed in KID No. 351/1995 (Old KID No. 36/1994) had allowed the same on 01.01.1997 and directed that the workman be reinstated to service with 50% back wages, continuity of service and consequential benefits.

The management had assailed the same in W.P. No. 2855/ 1999. During the pendency of the petition, the workman was reinstated to service with effect from June 1, 1999 to extract work from him. The management failed in the said petition and assailed the orders before the Division bench in Writ Appeal No. 1048/2002. The writ appeal was disposed of on 04.12.2002 whereby the back wages was set aside and the punishment was modified to stoppage of two increments permanently but the reinstatement with continuity of service was upheld. In that view the award of the Labour Court had attained finality with the said modification and since the workman had already been taken into service with effect from June 1, 1999 as an interim measure, the payment of the amount keeping in view the denial of two increments was to be taken into consideration and the amount was required to be calculated and paid. The said process was pending and in the meanwhile the workman retired from service with effect from 31.03.2005. Since according to the workman the amount due and payable had not been paid either immediately or till reinstatement and even thereafter, the workman had filed the application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act before the Labour Court which was registered in Application No. 9/2009.

The management though had denied the claim of the workman, the parties had thereafter tendered evidence and the workman had examined himself as AW-1 and got marked the documents at Exs.A1 to A6. The management examined one witness as RW-1 and got marked the documents at Exs.R1 to R9. The Labour Court on analyzing the said documents, has arrived at a conclusion that the workman is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 2,76,696/-. The quantum of the amount as determined by the Labour Court is disputed by the management.

The statement for the period 01.07.1997 to 25.06.1999 produced as part of Annexure-C to the petition, is relied upon to indicate that only a sum of Rs. 1,31,058/- was due and payable. In that light, a perusal of the order would disclose that the Labour Court having taken note of the fact that the workman had been taken into service with effect from June 1, 1999 had also taken into consideration the wage at the point of reinstatement that was required to be fixed.

In that light on taking note of the periods namely 01.01.1997 to 25.06.1999 and 26.06.1999 till 31.12.2002 the calculation has been made in so far as the back wages. Even if the document as relied on by the management is taken into consideration and in that light the wages for the subsequent period from 26.06.1999 till 31.12.2002 is taken into consideration, certainly the conclusion reached by the Labour Court based on the evidence to arrive at the figure of Rs. 2,61,696/- cannot be faulted.

In addition to the said amount, the Labour Court while taking into consideration the other benefits that had been claimed by the workman, has rightly arrived at the conclusion with regard to disentitling the workman for encashment of the earned leave for the period as it was not payable but has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the workman was entitled to the bonus for the period when he was in active service.

Therefore, if such consideration as made by the Labour Court is taken into consideration and the amount as quantified therein is referred, the amount of Rs. 2,76,696/- arrived at by the Labour Court as the amount payable, certainly there is no error committed by the Labour Court as the evidence available on record has been considered and a conclusion has been reached as the Labour Court has appropriately taken into consideration the date on which he was reinstated as an interim measure whereupon the appropriate wage was to be determined with effect from the date of reinstatement on the matter attaining finality before the division bench in the writ appeal. Therefore, the amount as ordered by the Labour Court does not call for interference.

On the issue relating to interest, the Labour Court has denied the same to the petitioner on the ground that there is delay and laches on the part of the workman. The said conclusion of holding the workman as responsible for the delay would not be justified since as provided under the Act the award would become implementable as on the date of its notification. As and when the award becomes implementable the onus is on the management to implement the award and it is only if the management fails to implement, workman would be required to seek implementation in terms of the provisions provided under the Act or otherwise. Therefore, to deny the benefit to the workman on the ground that the workman had not sought implementation would not be justified.

That apart in the instant case the workman had been reinstated as an interim measure and had continued in service. It is during the said period the management was agitating the matter before the higher forum. If no other benefit was granted by the higher forum, on the matter attaining finality, the management had a duty cast upon them to regularize the entire aspect by taking note of the date on which reinstatement was made as an interim measure and regularize and bring the same in terms of the award.

Therefore, the reason assigned by the Labour Court would not be justified and the conclusion reached by me would also be fortified by the view taken by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the decision of APSRTC v. B. Vikram Reddy (2004-LLJ-2- 1051) relied upon by the learned counsel for the workman. However, the period for which the interest is to be paid will also have to be modulated, though the amount due and payable was to be paid as on the date of the implementation of the award.

For the said purpose since in any event the management was required to regularize the entire aspect and pay the amount atleast before the workman was to retire from service on 31.03.2005 and it is thereafter when the said amount was not paid, the workman was forced to approach the Labour Court, the workman should be entitled to the interest atleast from 31.03.2005 till the payment of the amount. Hence the workman would be entitled to interest on the amount as determined by the Labour Court at 6% per annum from 31.03.2005 till the amount is paid. The default interest as has been granted by the Labour Court would however apply for the period for which the payment was not made if there were no interim orders directing such nonpayment.

The petitions are accordingly disposed of.