AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.R. Nayak, J.—This appeal arises out of an application made by the workman u/s 11-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The first respondent is the Workman. He filed E.P.No.13 of 1997 in I.D.5 of 1983 u/s 11-B of the Industrial Disputes Act as permitted by this Court in C.C.No.1497 of 1996 dated 6.8.1997. The Workman, along with his application, filed an annexure setting out his financial claims totaling to an amount of Rs.1,41,753/-. The Appellants herein, though filed counter-affidavit to the said application, did not specifically deny the pay scale claimed by the petitioner nor produce any separate memo of calculation to show the correct financial dues due to the workman. In those circumstances, the learned Labour Court judge, having regard to the earlier litigations between the parties and in terms of the award and the observations made by the learned single judge in his order in Contempt Case No.825 of 1995 and also the observations of the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1831 of 1988 and 151 of 1989, disposed of the E.P. directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.1,41,753/- towards the difference in wages, within two months from the date of the order. When that award was assailed in the W.P.No.35060 of 1999, the learned single judge too, on a reappraisal of the whole case and the legal contentions raised, did not find any merit in the Writ Petition and accordingly dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence this Writ Appeal.
The learned Government Pleader for Irrigation would contend that by virtue of the award passed by the Industrial Court in I.D.No. 5 of 1983 dated 20th February, 1985 it cannot be said that the workman is entitled to regular pay scale attached to the post of Work Assistant. The operative portion of the Award reads:
"In the result, the order of retrenchment passed against the petitioner is set aside. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. The petitioner is entitled to his full back wages. However, the amount paid to the petitioner from 20-10.1982 consequent on his appointment as a daily rated worker shall be deducted from the amount payable to him. Award is passed accordingly."
The purport of the Award should be understood in the context of the claim put forth by the workman before the Labour Court. The Workman in I.D.No. 5 of 1983 specifically contended that he was a ''regularized workman''. Further, on a previous occasion, when the dispute relating to the non-implementation of the award was brought before this Court, a learned single judge in Contempt Case No.825 of 1985 arising out of an order dated 5.7.1996 in W.P.21557 of 1995 held:
"The respondents shall pay the scale of pay attached to the post of work Assistant to the petitioner in accordance with the award and shall also continue to pay the scales in future until they are modified by the competent authority."
Further, in Writ Appeal Nos.151 of 1989 and 1831 of 1988 arising out of Writ Petitions directed against the Award of the Labour Court, the Division Bench held:
"As the respondents'' orders of retrenchment are illegal the petitioner must be deemed to have been in service and by virtue of the orders of the Supreme Court, he is entitled to for absorption and continuation."
Both the above orders were allowed to become final. Therefore, the circumstances set out above cumulatively would suggest that what was intended by the award of Labour Court was reinstatement of the petitioner into service as Work Assistant on regular basis. Be that as it may, as pointed out supra, before the Labour Court, the appellants herein have utterly failed to place any evidence whatsoever to contest the correctness of the claim made by the workman. As rightly pointed out by the learned Labour Court Judge, it is not even the case of the appellants that the regular pay scale is not applicable to the workman. If that be so, the appellants could have hardly any legitimate grievance against the order made by the learned Labour Court Judge and affirmed by the learned single judge of this Court.
We do not find any substantive ground to interfere with the order of the learned single judge. The Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, we grant six weeks'' time to the Appellants for payment of the amounts due to the workman.