AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J.
The writ petition was moved before us on 16th February, 2023. Petitioner is the workman. His prayer is for direction for payment of interest at 10% per annum on the settlement amount of ₹60,000/- from 28th January, 2016 till date and future interest also at that rate, till date of realization. Submission made on behalf of petitioner was, award dated 7th September, 2011 stood made in the industrial dispute referred. The labour Court held that refusal of employment with effect 17th from 11th May, 2007 was illegal and unjustified. There was direction for entitlement to and reinstatement in service with 50% back wages. Compliance was to be within two months from date of publication of award, failing which the amount was to carry interest at 10% per annum till realization.
The management establishment (opposite party no.2) had moved coordinate Bench for interference with the award. By judgment dated 28th October, 2016 findings in the award regarding illegal and unjustified termination were upheld. However, lump sum compensation at ₹60,000/- was directed to be paid within eight weeks of communication. On query from Court it was submitted, by letter dated 9th August, 2017 there was communication of the judgment.
Petitioner then went to the labour Court for recovery of the compensation amount. Impugned is order dated 20th September, 2022 made by the labour Court in the application made by petitioner under section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On query from Court it was submitted, petitioner had earlier applied for review of said judgment dated 28th October, 2016. The application was dismissed by order dated February, 2017. We reproduce paragraph 3 from said order.
“3. The aforesaid judgment was passed on consent of the parties and there is no error apparent on the face of the record to review the same. There is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the Review Petition.”
Today Ms. Nayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner-workman. She clarifies, petitioner’s challenge to impugned order dated 20th September, 2022 is confined to refusal to grant interest on the compensation amount. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.1. Opposite party nos.2 and 4 go unrepresented inspite of good service.
Award dated 7th September, 2011 was made in favour of petitioner directing his reinstatement with 50% back wages. We reproduce order made in the award by paragraph 8 therein.
“8. Hence ordered:
That the action of the management of M/s.L & T Ltd., E.C.C. Division, a contractor establishment, working under M/s. Jindal Stainless Ltd., Kalinga Nagar, Jajpur Road, Jajpur in terminating the services of Sri Bilas Kumar Biswal by way of refusal from employment with effect from 11.5.2007 is illegal and unjustified. The workman Sri Biswal is entitled to be reinstatement in service with 50% back wages. The management is directed to implement this Award within a period of two months from the date of its publication failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum till its realisation.”
(emphasis supplied)
Opposite party no.2, being the contractor establishment, challenged the award. Coordinate Bench by said judgment dated 28th October, 2016 said as would appear from paragraphs 11 and 12, reproduced below.
“11. Learned counsel for the management showing his fairness has submitted that the management is still ready to pay compensation. As per the finding given by the Labour Court in which it arrived at conclusion that there is violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, we accordingly and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the management and opposite party-workman and after taking into consideration the finding given by the Labour Court regarding noncompliance of Section 25F of the I.D. Act has been passed and applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and BSNL (supra), we are of the considered view that the award needs no interference so far as the finding of the Labour Court to the effect that the termination is held to be illegal and unjustified but so far as the relief since the opposite party has not made out a case to come under the exception as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad (supra) and also taking into consideration that the Project itself has been closed way back on 30.09.2009 as such in the ends of justice, if the workman would be granted compensation to the tune of Rs.60,000/-, it will meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the award dated 7.9.2011 is modified to the extent that the management shall disburse amount of Rs.60,000/- by way of lump-sum compensation in favour of the workman within period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
With these observations and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.”
(emphasis supplied)
By impugned order dated 20th September, 2020 the labour Court said and directed as would appear from, inter alia, a passage in paragraph 5 and paragraph 6 therein.
“ xxx xxx xxx
Thus, as the OP-management has not complied/carried out the judgment dtd.28.10.2016 passed in WP(C) No.21940 of 2012 by the Hon’ble High Court within the stipulated time, for which the applicant has to again run to the different Courts in order to ventilate his grievance. So, it is felt proper to direct the O.Ps to pay a sum of ₹60,000/- (Sixty Thousand) only towards litigation cost.
In the present case the applicant has also claimed interest @ 18%, but he is not entitled to any interest as there is no specific order passed in the above order by the Hon’ble Court to that effect. Hence, it is ordered.
The Misc. Case be and the same is allowed, in part on ex-parte against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-(Rupees one lakh twenty thousand) only in toto to the applicant within two months from this order, failing which the applicant is entitled for interest @ 6% per annum.”
(emphasis supplied)
On query from Court we have been told that commercial lending rate of interest in cash credit and overdraft financial credit facility granted by nationalized banks varies between 8.25 to 16.95% per month, compounded quarterly. We made query because inspite of the award not having been interfered with in aforesaid judgment dated 28th October, 2016, except as modified to be compensation at ₹60,000/- payable within eight weeks communication, it is said the compensation still remains unpaid. We accept the position that the money was not paid as, inter alia, opposite party no.2 goes unrepresented inspite of good service.
It may be lawfully presumed that because there was record of consent and fair submission made on behalf of contractor establishment (opposite party no.2) for confirming the award on finding of wrongful retrenchment, the coordinate Bench expected that the modified direction for compensation would be paid within the time directed, thereby leading to omission on imposing payment of interest on default. As such, since the time compensation of ₹60,000/- became payable to petitioner lastly on 6th October, 2017 and till date, opposite party no.2 has had the money to use of it by petitioner. There can be no doubt said opposite party is a commercial establishment. It follows, we can apply the commercial lending rate of nationalized banks on the defaulted amount, to be calculated and paid by opposite party no.2. There is no impediment in imposing the term for interest, omitted by said judgment dated 28th October, 2016 of coordinate Bench since, there was no consent extended on behalf of petitioner, as recorded therein, barring his entitlement. Relief of reinstatement flowing from the award was denied by the coordinate Bench on holding that he had not made out a case to come under the exception as held by the Supreme Court in Hari Nandan Prasad v. Employer I/R to Management of F.C.I., reported in AIR 2014 SC 1848.
Considering petitioner has prayed for only 10% per annum simple interest on the sums awarded by impugned order, we direct that said sums are to be paid to petitioner along with interest. The compensation amount of ₹60,000/- will carry 10% per annum simple interest from 6th October, 2017 (on expiry of 8 weeks from letter dated 9th August, 2017 communicating said judgment dated 28th October, 2016) till payment. The litigation cost of ₹60,000/- will carry interest at 10% per annum from the date of impugned order dated 20th September, 2022, till realization. In directing as above we record that though the labour Court said in impugned order, coordinate Bench had not made specific order on interest yet, it did go on to grant interest at 6% per annum.
With above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
………………………….