Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs B. Ningappa

A.S. Bopanna, J.—1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 22.03.2014 passed in Application No. 2/2013 as at Annexure-H to the petition. The respondent herein who was working in the petitioner-corporation had been dismissed from the services. Claiming to be aggrieved by such action, he had raised a dispute, in I.D. No. 48/1997 which resulted in the award dated 7.8.2007 whereby he was directed to be reinstated into service.

The petitioner-corporation assailed the said order in W.P. No. 1595/2008. At the first instance, this Court by the interim order dated 01.02.2008 had stayed the operation and execution of the award dated 7.8.2007. The writ petition ultimately came to be disposed of by the order dated 31.01.2009 whereby the reinstatement was confirmed, but the back-wages had been set aside. In the said writ proceedings, the respondent herein did not appear. It is in that circumstance, this Court while disposing of the writ petition had also directed that the entitlement for wages to the respondent would be from the date he reports to the duty.

In the above background, notwithstanding the said proceedings, the respondent had filed a petition under Section 33(c)(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947, in Application No. 2/2013 seeking that he is entitled to the benefits of the award in the form of the back-wages that had been granted and also wages for the period the award had not been implemented. The III Addl. Labour Court by its order dated 22.3.2014 has allowed the application in part and directed payment of Rs. 2,21,158. Claiming to be aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-corporation is before this Court.

In the light of the contentions that have been put forth, a perusal of the order impugned would disclose that the Labour Court has proceeded on the basis that the award which had been passed in favour of the respondent herein had not been stayed in any proceedings before this Court and therefore, he would be entitled to the benefit of the salary from 7.11.2007 to 22.5.2009. It is no doubt true that in the process of tendering evidence before the Court below, some error has been committed on behalf of the petitioner-corporation in not bringing all aspects before the Labour Court relating to the proceedings whereunder the award had been challenged and interim order had been passed.

Be that as it may, when the said proceedings are matters on record before this Court and the order dated 1.2.2008 is evident to indicate that the award dated 7.8.2007 passed in I.D. No. 48/1997 had been stayed and the writ petition which was pending before this Court was subsequently disposed of on 31.1.2009, the said judicial proceedings cannot be ignored.

If that be the position, the ultimate conclusion reached by this Court while modifying the award also becomes relevant. Since the respondent had not been appeared before this Court in the said proceedings, this Court had directed that the entitlement to the wages on implementation of the award would only be on reporting to duty. Hence, the benefit was when the award has been implemented by the order dated 30.06.2009 and no benefit for the earlier period could be sought by the respondent. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion reached by the Labour Court is entirely on an erroneous basis that the award was in operation and in that light, the wages was required to be paid when the reinstatement had been effected. The said conclusion not being justified, the order dated 22.3.2014 is set aside.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.