AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Sujatha, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the 1st respondent vide Annexure "A" dated 08.05.2012.
Facts in brief are:
- that the 2nd respondent was working in Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha from 22.08.1969 as "paid secretary'' and was drawing salary of Rs. 745.80/-. His services were governed and controlled by the Common Cadre Committee, Mysore District with effect from 05.09.1980. 2nd respondent was under the direct control of the Chairman of Common Cadre Committee. It was alleged by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner/bank had refused employment to him with effect from 01.09.1988 and an Industrial Dispute was raised by him in I.D. No. 170/88 before the Labour Court, Mysore. After adjudicating the dispute raised by the 2nd respondent, the Labour Court, Mysore passed an award on 13.07.1993 directing reinstatement of the 2nd respondent into service with full backwages and continuity of service and other consequential benefits. This award was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P. No. 36544/95 and the same was rejected as per the order dated 12.2.1997. Since the award passed by the Labour Court was not implemented, 2nd respondent approached this Court in W.P.21688/1997. This Court by order dated 12.11.1997 directed the petitioner to comply with the award of the Labour Court within four months. Since the petitioner did not comply with the order passed by this Court, a contempt petition was filed which came to be closed recording the submission of the respondents therein that they will pay the difference of pay to the complainant/respondent No. 2 within eight weeks from the date of the order. However, it was observed that if the complainant has any grievance, it is open to him to adjudicate the same in accordance with law.
The 2nd respondent demanded a sum of Rs. 12,85,424/- from the petitioner towards backwages which was computed after taking into account the benefit of the consequential benefits awarded by the Labour Court. Despite the representation made by the 2nd respondent, the same not being paid, the 2nd respondent being eligible for fixation of pay scales, revision of pay scale from time to time, annual increments etc., Writ Petition No. 34605/2000 was filed before this Court by the 2nd respondent for a direction to the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner on par with secretary of different societies who were working in CCA. This Hon''ble Court vide order dated 12.03.2001, disposed of the writ petition directing the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies or the Common Cadre Committee to fix the scale of pay payable to the 2nd respondent by considering the representation of the 2nd respondent within six months from the date of the order. It is also observed that in respect of the scale of pay and allowances payable to the 2nd respondent, the same has to be fixed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies or the Common Cadre Committee. This order has reached finality. Since the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies had not complied with the order passed by this Court dated 12.03.2001 despite requests made by the 2nd respondent, contempt proceedings in CCC No. 938/2002 was initiated by the 2nd respondent before this Court which was disposed of on 29.03.2005 with a direction to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mysore to implement the directions issued by this Court on or before 31.05.2005 pursuant to which the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mysore fixed the pay scale of the 2nd respondent vide Annexure "D" dated 20.05.2005. This order was not given effect to by the petitioner.
The 2nd respondent approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 5337/2006. The Hon''ble Court directed the respondents therein to fix the salaries by taking into account and in giving effect to the pay scales fixed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner and consequential monetary benefits within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order against which review petition No. 370/2011 was filed by the petitioner which came to be rejected by order dated 13.4.2012.
Petitioner/bank preferred Writ Appeal No. 2598/12 challenging the order in Writ Petition No. 5337/06. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the respondent/employee against which R.P. No. 151/2013 was filed by the petitioner which came to be rejected by order dated 30.04.2014 This order also has reached finality.
Thereafter, 2nd respondent filed an application under Section 33(c)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ''the Act'') before the Labour Commissioner to implement the award passed by the Labour Court dated 13.07.1993. The Labour Commissioner after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing both the parties, directed the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District to recover the amount of Rs. 12,85,424/- from the petitioner/bank as the arrears of land revenue and to deposit the amount in the name of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Region-2, Bangalore. This order passed by the 1st respondent is impugned in this writ petition.
Heard learned counsel Sri Harish A.S. for the petitioner as well as Sri V.S. Naik, advocate for the respondent.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the quantification made by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in fixing the pay scale of the 2nd respondent. The main ground raised and addressed before this Court in this writ petition is that the 2nd respondent was not an employee of the petitioner/bank. There was no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner/bank and the 2nd respondent. In such circumstances, the Labour Commissioner entertaining the application filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 33(c)(1) of the Act and issuing a recovery certificate to recover the amount of arrears of pay of Rs. 12,85,424/- from the petitioner is without jurisdiction. It is further contended that even assuming that the 2nd respondent is an employee of the bank, the jurisdiction of the Labour Commissioner is ousted. Respondent No. 1 exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order at Annexure "A". It is also contended that Common Cadre Authority has been abolished with effect from 01.07.2010.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 34605/00 dated 12.03.2001 and as per the directions issued by this Court in contempt proceedings i.e., CCC No. 938/2002 dated 29.3.2005, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies has fixed the pay scale which cannot be found fault with. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent has filed the application under Section 33(c)(1) of the Act for execution of the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 170/88 dated 31.7.1993. The Labour Commissioner is empowered to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 33(c)(1) of the Act, where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award for the recovery of money due, if an application is filed by the workman. Accordingly, it is submitted that this writ petition is filed only with an intention to harass the workman/2nd respondent which is evident from the background of the case. As such, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition with costs.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
After going through the factual aspects of this matter, it is noticed that this case has a chequered history. From the year 1988, the workman is fighting for the employment as well as for the consequential benefits flowing thereof. The 2nd respondent/workman has approached this Court seeking a relief against the petitioner, which is one of the member of the Common Cadre Committee. In Writ Appeal No. 2598/12 disposed off on 30.1.2013, a Division Bench of this Court has observed, "Keeping all this in view and considering that the pay scale and allowances of the appellant were fixed in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, we deprecate the conduct of the said bank and so also of respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition". Considering the conduct of the bank/petitioner herein, Writ Appeal filed by the petitioner/bank was dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the respondent-employee.
The orders passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation clearly indicates that the 2nd respondent was an employee of the petitioner/bank. Now at this juncture, the petitioner/bank cannot deny the relationship of employer and employee between 2nd respondent and the petitioner/bank which is already settled in view of the several decisions rendered by this Court confirming this relationship of employer and employee between petitioner/bank and the 2nd respondent. Which has reached finality. It is also to be noticed that the 2nd respondent has approached the Respondent No. 1 under Section 33(c)(1) of the Act only to implement the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 170/98 dated 13.07.1993. This claim of the workman, very well falls within the ambit of section 33(c)(1) of the Act, where in Section 33(c)(1) of the Act provides for a workman to file an application before the Labour Commissioner as per the notifications issued from time to time where any money is due to a workman from the employer under an award for recovery of the said money due to him. As such, it cannot be held that the Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 33(c)(1) of the Act. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal is ousted and the respondent No. 1 exceeded its jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 33(c)(1) is not worthy of acceptance in view of the specific provisions of Section 33(c)(1) which contemplates the workman to approach the respondent No. 1 for the recovery of money due from an award. Accordingly, the said contention of the petitioner is negated.
The other contention of the petitioner that the Common Cadre Committee is abolished from 1.7.2010 is of no consequence to the case on hand, as the petitioner/bank itself has approached this Court in Writ Appeal No. 2598/12 and suffered an order.
For these reasons, I am of the considered opinion that no exception can be made out from the order passed by the respondent No. 1 at Annexure "A". Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
However, it is noticed that this Court by its order dated 8.9.2015 has observed that, "the payment of the amount by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 in a sum of Rs. 12,85,424/- in terms of the recovery certificate at Annexure "A" cannot be disputed at this stage. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount in deposit". Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- deposited before this Court was permitted to be withdrawn by the 2nd respondent. Now, the petitioner/bank is directed to pay the balance amount to the 2nd respondent within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. If the said balance amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the petitioner shall pay the balance amount with interest @ 6%p.a. from the date of the order of the respondent No. 1 till the date of payment.