AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated March 2, 1995 by which the Labour Court has allowed the applications filed by the respondent-workmen u/s 33-C(2). The petitioner has filed five petitions. Counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in Civil Writ Petition No. 6177 of 1995. These may be briefly noticed.
The respondent-workman was employed as a Salesman with the petitioner on June 6, 1981. On October 8, 1982, the petitioner transferred the respondent-workman to the Mini Bank which in turn terminated his services in May 1983. The Union raised an industrial dispute. By its award dated March 10, 1988, the Labour Court held that the transfer of the workman to Mini Bank was invalid. After a lapse of more than three years, the petitioner reinstated the workman on June 6, 1991. The petitioner did not pay the back wages or the other dues to the respondent. Consequently, he filed a petition u/s 33-C(2) in 1993. The workman claimed the arrears of wages, bonus, provident fund with interest at the rate 12 percent per annum for the period from April 4, 1983 to May 31, 1991. The claim was for an amount of Rs. 81,203.80. Similar claims were made in other petitions as well.
The petitioner-management contested the claim. It pleaded that the application u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was not maintainable as the workmen had no existing right to claim salary and that the petitions were bared by time. The Labour Court rejected both these contentions and upheld the claim made by the respondent-workman. Aggrieved by the order of the labour court, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
Since the dispute is confined to the validity of the order passed by the labour court, no written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent-workman.
Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner Has submitted that the labour court is merely an executing court. It can execute an award However, it cannot give anything beyond the award. According to the learned counsel, the labour court has gone beyond the award in granting bonus and provident fund to the respondent-workman. It has also been contended that the court has erred in awarding interest on the amount of back wages. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by Mrs. Abha Rathore, who has appeared for the respondent-workmen in all the five cases.
The short question that arises for consideration is - Is the action of the Labour Court in awarding back wages, provident fund and bonus alongwith interest as claimed by the respondent-workman illegal?
Section 33-C enables the workman to recover the money due to him from the employer. Clause (2) is relevant for the purpose of the decision of the present case. It inter alia entitles a workman to approach the labour court for the grant of "money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money" from the employer. It entitles the workman to claim not only the amount which may become due by way of wages but also other benefits which are capable of being computed in terms of money. The provision also authorises the labour court to decide questions regarding the amount of money or the rate at which benefits should be computed. The provision fixes no period of limitation within which the workman has to approach the labour court.
In the present case, the petitioner had transferred the workman to a Mini Bank. In May 1983, his services were terminated. The Union having raised a dispute, the appropriate Government had referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, Haryana to decide - "whether the salesmen employed by the Confed can be transferred in Mini Bank ? If so, with what details ? " The Tribunal considered the matter and up-held the claim of the workman. Resultantly, the order of transfer was held to be illegal and the workmen were to be deemed to have continued in service of the petitioner. The consequence is that the petitioner was liable to treat them like all other workmen and to pay them their salary and give them other benefits on the assumption that they had continued to serve like the other employees. Admittedly, the petitioner had paid not only wages but also provident fund and bonus to the workmen. That being so, even those who had been transferred and whose services had been terminated, had to be treated at par with others who had continued in service. The respondent-workmen were entitled to not only the payment of wages but also the grant of all other benefits including bonus and provident fund.
Even though, the labour Court had up-held the claim of the workmen in March 1988, the petitioner did not reinstate them for more than three years till June 6, 1991. Not only that, the benefits which had accrued to the respondent-workmen like wages etc. were not paid to them and they were, thus, forced to approach the Labour Court again. In the circumstances of the case, the action of the labour court in up-holding the claim of the workmen cannot be said to be either unfair or illegal.
Mr. Gupta submits that while considering a petition u/s 33-C(2), the labour court acts like an executing court and cannot give anything beyond what has been granted to the workman in the award. Assuming it to be so, it is clear that when the order of transfer was annulled, the respondent-workmen were entitled to be treated like others who had continued to serve with the petitioner. The petitioner was under a duty to treat them at par with the other workmen. The benefits had to be given to them on the assumption that they had continued to work with the petitioner like other workmen. By legal fiction, they were to be deemed to have worked with the petitioner from May 1983 when there services were terminated till June 1991 when they were actually reinstated. Consequently, all benefits computable in terms of Money that had accrued to them during this interval had to be paid to them. Since the petitioner had illegally failed to pay the amount of money as due to the workmen, they were forced to approach the Labour Court. Just as an executing court is entitled to interpret a decree the labour court is duty bound to see the implications of an award and give all those benefits which are admissible to the workman. This is precisely what has been done in the present case.
Mr. Gupta further submitted that Section 2(rr) of the Act defines ''wages''. The benefits of provident fund and bonus are specifically excluded from the expression ''wages''. The counsel submits that u/s 33-C(2), the labour court could have only awarded wages and not the benefits of provident fund etc.
The contention is mis-conceived. Section 33-C(2) does not provide that the workman can claim only wages. On the contrary, it permits the workman to claim the amount of money as well as the other benefits admissible to him. It may be that the amount of money or other benefits are admissible by virtue of an agreement. These may not be wages. Whatever is computable in terms of money can be awarded u/s 33-C(2). Admittedly, the workmen are entitled to the benefits of provident fund and bonus. These are plainly computable in terms of money. These fall within the dues which can be claimed by a workman u/s 33-C(2). The action of the labour court in awarding these benefits to the respondent-workmen cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions of the Act.
It was then contended that the labour court has erred in awarding interest. According to the learned counsel, there is no provision under which the benefit of interest may be admissible to a workman. Consequently, it was submitted that the court could not have awarded interest.
The contention is fallacious. The respondent-workmen have fought a long-drawn battle since 1983. In spite of the award of the labour court in March 1988, the workmen were not reinstated. Even after reinstatement, the amount of back wages and other benefits admissible to them were not released. They were forced to go to the labour court and had to fight for two years before their claim was sustained. Thereafter, proceedings before this court were initiated. The sequence of events shows that the respondent-workmen have been denied their rightful dues but the value of their money has considerably diminished due to inflation that is prevalent in the country. Furthermore, the petitioner has retained what was required to be disbursed to the workmen. In this situation, the labour court was perfectly entitled to say that the workmen should be compensated by way of payment of interest. Accordingly, their claim has been sustained. Neither in equity nor in law can the action be said to be unjust or illegal.
Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the labour court has erred in holding that " the workmen are entitled to recover the amount claimed in the petitions with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date claimed due till recovery". According to the learned counsel, this amounts to award of interest on interest. Mrs. Abha Rathore, on the other hand points out that the plain meaning of the direction is that the interest shall be payable to the workman only for the period after May 31, 1991 because the workman had already claimed interest upto that date. Accordingly, it is clear that the workmen shall be entitled to the payment of interest as awarded by the labour Court with effect from June 1, 1991 only on the amount as awarded by the labour Court.
No other point has been raised.
Accordingly, there is no merit in these petitions which are dismissed. In the circumstances of these cases, the parties are left to bear their own costs.