Managing Director, Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation vs Kanwar Singh

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the Management against order of learned Single Judge quashing order dated

25th September, 2006 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Appellant-Management purporting to be in implementation of earlier judgment of this Court

dated 4th October, 1996.

The Respondent was serving as a Block Officer with the Appellant-Management. He served with effect from 23rd July, 1966 to 18th February,

1969 when his services were terminated. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication and vide award dated 2nd February,

1978, order of termination was held to be not justified. The workman was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and back-wages to

the extent of 30% at the rate of Rs. 120 per month from the date of termination till his actual reinstatement. Against the said award, the

Management filed C.W.P. No. 1854 of 1980 which was dismissed on 30th October, 1992. The workman had also filed C.W.P. No. 3308 of

1980 which was allowed on 4th October, 1996.

The workman filed C.W.P. No. 10776 of 1997 for implementation of judgment dated 4th October, 1996 which was allowed vide order dated

22nd October, 1997. The workman also filed a contempt petition which was dismissed on 16th February, 1999. It was observed that the

workman had already superannuated and had already been paid a sum of about Rs. 2,00,000. The workman could approach for recovery of the

balance amount or take his remedy under the law. Further order dated 15th March, 1999 was passed making it clear that the workman could

pursue any available remedy if the amount due was not paid. Similar orders were passed on 29th May, 2004 and 31st May, 2005 by the Division

Bench.

Thereafter, the Management passed order Annexure P-9, dated 25th September, 2006. The earning of the workman was assessed to be Rs.

30,26412 from agriculture, during the period of unemployment. The arrears payable were assessed to be Rs. 8,93,503.80, out of which Rs.

2,00,000 approximately had already been paid and the amount remaining to be paid was Rs. 6,90,928. Since the earning was more, nothing was

held to be payable to the workman.

The workman thereafter filed C.W.P. No. 12097 of 1999 with a grievance that workman had already been held to be entitled to reinstatement

with back wages and judgment by this Court dated 4th October, 1996. Direction had already been granted for implementation of the said

judgment vide order dated 22nd October, 1997. The Appellant, in the guise of calculating the amount payable, had gone behind the judgment and

declared that the workman was not entitled to any payment, contrary to the judgment dated 4th October, 1996. In case the Appellant was not

satisfied with the order of this Court dated 4th October, 1996, only remedy for the appeallant was to challenge the said order at an appropriate

forum. Once judgment had become final the same had to be carried out.

The reply of the Appellant before the learned Single Judge was that in contempt proceedings, the workman was directed to approach the

Appellant for recovery of the balance amount. Only remedy for the workman was to approach the Labour Court and in absence of which, the

Appellant could have gone into the question whether the workman was gainfully employed during the period of unemployment and whether any

amount was to be paid.

Learned Single Judge held that since the issue whether workman was gainfully emloyed or not, had already been gone into in the writ petition of

the workman, the Appellant could not go into the said question in the order Annexure P-9. The order passed by the Appellant was, thus, an

attempt to over reach the Court. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and order passed by the Appellant was set aside. The workman was

held entitled to all the benefits flowing from the order of this Court dated 4th October, 1996 vide which the Appellant had already been directed to

release the benefits due to the workman from the date of demand to the date of reinstatement within two months.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the result of order passed by this Court on 16th February, 1999 in contempt proceedings, read

with further orders dated 15th March, 1999 and orders passed by Division Bench on 29th May, 2004 and 31st May, 2005, was that the only

remedy for the workman was to go to the Labour Court, in absence of which, the Appellant could pass an appropriate order on the issue of right

of the workman under judgment dated 4th October, 1996, including the issue whether the workman was gainfully employed during the

unemployed period.

To appreciate the submission, it will be appropriate to reproduce the order dated 4th October, 1996 passed by this Court which admittedly

has become final:

The Management brought no proof on the records of the case that the Petitioner during the period of his enforced idleness, was gainfully employed

and therefore, there was nothing at all to disbelieve the statement of the workman. Following the dictum of law laid down by Full Bench in Hari

Palace''s case (supra). I modify the award Annexure P-2 and hold the workman entitled to full back wages from the date he made a demand upto

the date of reinstatement. No orders as to costs.

Perusal of the above order shows that the issue whether workman was gainfully employed or not, and whether workman will be entitled to full

back-wages or not, has been finally concluded by this Court and the Appellant could not reverse nor nullify the said finding.

Order passed in contempt proceedings dated 16th February, 1999 is as under:

It is not disputed that in pursuance to the Court Direction the award of the Labour Court has since been implemented and that Petitioner was made

to join duty. He has since superannuated. The only claim, which has now to be met by the Corporation, is in regard to back wages to be paid to

him. Admittedly, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 has been paid to him. This does not appear to be the full amount of wages due to the Petitioner on the

basis of award of Labour Court. He is directed to approach the Corporation for recovery of the balance amount and in case the same is not paid,

it will be open to him to pursue his remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. No case for contempt is made out. Consequently, the petition is

dismissed.

Thereafter, further order was passed on 15th March, 1999 to the following effect:

Having heard counsel for the applicant, the application is disposed of with an observation that the Petitioner will be at liberty to pursue whatever

remedy is available to him under the law in case the amount due to him, if any, is not paid by the Corporation. This is, however, no ground to

review my order dated 16th February, 1999.

The Appellant challenged the same before the Division Bench and the Division Bench vide order dated 29th May, 2004 (Annexure R-3)

observed as under:

We have considered the submission made by Shri Tiwari. In our view, the order dated 15th March, 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge need

not be construed to mean as it has conferred an independent cause of action upon the Respondent-workman to pursue his legal remedy. It is self-

evident from the afore-mentioned order that the learned Single Judge declined to review his order dated 16th February, 1999, therefore, his

observations that ""the applicant-workman will be at liberty to pursue whatever remedy is available to him under the law in case the amount due to

him, if any, is not paid"". Need to be read in conjunction and in continuation of the order dated 16th February, 1999. We are, therefore, of the

considered view that the remedy available to the workman for recovery of the balance amount, if any, would be one u/s 33-C(ii) of the Industrial

Disputes Act as neither the disputed questions of fact regarding kinds of monetary claims can be gone into in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction

of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India nor the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act can be allowed to be

converted into execution proceedings of a judgment, order or direction of the Court. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed being

infructuous with no order as to costs..

The order was further clarified vide order dated 31st May, 2005 in the following terms:

However, if the Appellant-workman can establish his right to recover any monetary benefit from the Corporation independently before the Writ

Court, our judgment and order dated 29th May, 2004 does not and would not preclude him from claiming such benefits. The present application,

therefore, is disposed of with the clarification and modification of the order dated 29th May, 2004 to the extent that it would be open for the

applicant/Respondent/ workman to have recourse under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the recovery of balance amount, if any, and/or to

establish for any other monetary benefit independently before the Court in the writ proceedings. He, however, cannot be permitted to interpret the

order dated 15th March, 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in a contempt petition which had already been dismissed to mean as if he can

initiate fresh contempt proceedings against the authorities or Coporation so as to get his money benefit recovered under the threat of such

proceedings.

The above orders clearly show that the Appellant was not given any right to decide the question whether workman was entitled to back-wages

or not, or whether workman was gainfully employed. The only question which the Appellant could decide was, subject to orders of this Court, the

amount due. While passing order dated 25th May, 2006, not only the Appellant examined the question of amount due to the workman which was

worked out to be Rs. 8,93,503.80, it also held that the workman was gainfully employed and had earning of Rs. 30 lacks and was not entitled to

back-wages which was clearly in violation or orders of this Court and without jurisdiction.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied upon judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Singh Rathor Vs. Shri Baidyanath

Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. and Another, to submit that the High Court should not interfere with exercise of discretion of the Tribunal u/s 11A of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. We do not find any relevance of this judgment to the issue herein. He also referred to judgment of the Hon''ble

Supreme Court in The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Kumari Tanuja, to submit that the legal basis of the judgment could be removed by

passing an order. We are unable to accept the submission. Once the order has been passed by this Court, there is no power with any litigant to

pass any order in conflict with orders passed. Passing of a retrospective law by legislature stands on different footing. The judgment relied upon

instead of supporting the Appellant, goes against it. Reference was then made to judement of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Raju Ramsing Vasave

Vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar and Others, to submit that nullity can be defence to the plea of res judicata. We do not see application of this

principle to the issue in question as judgment of this Court could not be treated to be nullity. He also relies upon judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme

Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Krishan Dayal Sharma, wherein it was observed that executing Court could not modify the decree, which

is not the proposition under consideration. He further relies upon a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in North East Karnataka Road

Transport Corporation Vs. M. Nagangouda, to submit that engagement in agriculture is also a gainful employment. Since the issue whether the

workman was gainfully employed or not, had already attained finality, the judgment relied upon has no relevance.

View taken by learned Single Judge is, thus, not shown to be erroneous. The Appellant is liable to pay the amount determined to be due,

without taking into account alleged income during period of unemployment. If workman is not satisfied with the calculation, he can take his remedy

in accordance with law.

The appeal filed by the Appellant is, thus, frivolus and is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs. 50,000.