Namdev vs The Divisional Controller, NWKRTC and Others

H. Billappa, J.

In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 10.11.2009 vide Annexure-F.

By the impugned order at Annexure-F, the Labour Court, Bijapur has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ''the Act'').

Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Briefly stated the facts are; The petitioner was working as a driver in the respondent-Corporation. He was dismissed from service on 03.02.1995. He raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Bijapur in Reference No. 84/1998. The Labour Court, Bijapur by its award dated 24.09.2002, directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service. It is stated, the petitioner was not allowed to resume duty between 24.09.2002 till 05.05.2004. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act for payment of arrears of wages for the period from 24.09.2002 to 05.05.2004. The Labour Court, Bijapur, by its order dated 10.11.2009 has dismissed the application. Therefore, this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The Labour Court was not justified in rejecting the application. Further he submitted that the Labour Court had directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service in Reference No. 84/1998. In spite of that, the petitioner was not allowed to resume duty from 24.09.2002 to 05.05.2004. Therefore, the Labour Court was not justified in dismissing the application. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in 2004-LLJ-2-1051 (ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs. B VIKRAMREDDY)

As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the petitioner never approached the respondent to take him for duty. Therefore, the Labour Court was justified in dismissing the application. The impugned order does not call for interference.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

The point that arise for my consideration is,

Whether the impugned order calls for interference?

It is relevant to note, the petitioner was working as a driver in the respondent-Corporation. He was dismissed from service on 03.02.1995. He had approached the Labour Court, Bijapur in Reference No. 84/1998. The Labour Court, Bijapur by its award dated 24.09.2002 has directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service. Thereafter, the respondent has not reinstated the petitioner into service till 06.05.2004. Therefore, the petitioner has approached the Labour Court, claiming arrears of wages for the period from 24.09.2002 to 05.05.2004. The Labour Court by its order dated 10.11.2009 has dismissed the application stating that the petitioner has not approached the respondent to join for duty. It is not correct. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs. B VIKRAM REDDY''s case reported in 2004-LLJ-2-1051, at para 5, has observed as follows:

"(5) THE main charge against the respondent was that he did not issue tickets to two passengers. The reason attributed by the respondent in not issuing tickets was that there were too many passengers in the bus and due to this he could not issue tickets. We do not think this a justifiable reason. The Labour court also did not accept it. The fact that the respondent did not issue ticket to the passengers is a serious matter. It indicates that the respondent was not diligent in discharging his official duty. In that view of the matter the labour Court was correct in not ordering back wages to the workman and the High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction should not have interfered with the award passed by the Labour court. However, we notice that in spite of the award passed on April 23, 1997 the appellant corporation did not implement the award and the respondent was not reinstated in service. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent never approached the corporation nor did he take any steps for execution of the award and therefore the appellant did not reinstate the respondent. We do not consider this as a justifiable stand on the part of the appellant Corporation. The award was not challenged by the Corporation. In the absence of any material on record to show as to why the Corporation could not implement the award, the respondent is justified in getting full wages from June 21, 1997 till reinstatement is effected. The directions of the High Court to pay 50% of the back wages is set aside, but the appellant is directed to pay full wages from june 21, 1997 till reinstatement"

It is clear, the above decision is applicable to the facts of the present case. The respondent was directed to reinstate the petitioner into service. The respondent is now contending that the petitioner did not approach the respondent to join for duty which is not correct. The decision reported in 2004-LLJ-2-1051 is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.11.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bijapur in Application No. 7/2007 is hereby quashed. The respondent is directed to pay the arrears of wages for the period from 24.09.2002 to 05.05.2004 within three months from today.