AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
CM No. 5580/2011 (of the petitioner for preponing the hearing) & W.P. (C) 8344/2010.
The writ petition was filed in September, 2010 impugning the order dated 6th May, 2010 of the Industrial Adjudicator u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 finding a sum of Rs. 1,03,430/- to be due from the Petitioner employer to the Respondent workman on account of overtime, earned leave, casual leave, bonus etc. during the period of employment from 1st January, 1998 to 6th January, 2011.
The petition having been filed late was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay.
The writ petition remained under objections and was filed and re-filed repeatedly and came up first before this Court on 15th December, 2010 when none appeared for the Petitioner and the same was re-notified for 25th January, 2011.
On 25th January, 2011, the counsel for the Petitioner sought time to file a further affidavit for condonation of delay in filing the writ petition. The matter was accordingly adjourned to 4th February, 2011 when again request was made for adjournment and the matter was adjourned to 4th March, 2011. On 4th March, 2011, the presiding Judge was on leave and the matter was adjourned to 6th July, 2011.
CM No. 5580/2011 has been filed for proponing the date of hearing contending that the Respondent workman in the meanwhile had applied for recovery u/s 33C(1) and in which proceedings Recovery Certificate was issued and in execution whereof warrants of arrest of the officials of the Petitioner have been issued. It is further stated that the Petitioner has handed over a cheque dated 23rd April, 2011 of Rs. 1,03,430/- to the SDM executing the Recovery Certificate. Though the application is dated 15th April, 2011 but the same has also been got listed for the first time today i.e. after the date of 23rd April, 2011 of the cheque. The counsel for the Petitioner however states that the SDM has been orally requested not to present the cheque and the cheque has not been encashed till date.
Be that as it may, the counsel has also been heard on the writ petition.
It is inter alia the case of the Petitioner employer that the Respondent workman had earlier raised an industrial dispute with respect to the termination of his employment and of which reference was made and which was decided against the Respondent workman and the writ petition preferred by the Respondent workman against the said award was also dismissed. It is urged that thus the question of anything being due from the Petitioner to Respondent workman does not arise.
It is not as if the Industrial Adjudicator while deciding the application u/s 33C(2) was oblivious of the aforesaid fact. In fact the Respondent workman had in the proceedings u/s 33C(2) relied upon the certified copy of the written statement filed by the Petitioner in the said reference u/s 10 of the ID Act and in which the employment of the Respondent workman during the aforesaid period from 1st January, 1998 to 6th January, 2001 was admitted.
Merely because the reference on the dispute as to termination has been decided against the Respondent workman would not come in the way of an order u/s 33C(2) with respect to dues of the period of employment. The Petitioner has also not chosen to place the award on the reference or the order of this Court dismissing the writ petition there against in the paper book. Similarly, the written statement in the award filed in the reference has also not been filed. Upon the same being put to the counsel for the Petitioner he contends that the same is not disputed.
The counsel for the Petitioner has next urged that the claim u/s 33C could have been made only within one year. Reference in this regard is made to the proviso to Section 33C(1). However what was before the Industrial Adjudicator was an application u/s 33C(2) and not u/s 33C(1) and there does not appear to be any such limitation for an application u/s 33C(2). Moreover even if the proviso to Section 33C(1) were to be held applicable, the same also provides for entertaining the application even after one year for sufficient cause. In the present case, considering that the dispute had been raised and in which had the Respondent workman succeeded he would have been entitled to all back wages etc.; sufficient cause is found for not filing the application u/s 33C(2) earlier.
Considering all the aforesaid facts particularly the delay at each stage on the part of the Petitioner, no case for entertaining the petition is made out. The petition is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.
The date of 6th July, 2011 is cancelled.