JDA, Jaipur v. Judge, Labour Court — 1988 DIGILAW 704 (RAJ)

S.S. BYAS, J.—Since identical questions of law and facts are involved in these ten inter-connected writ petitions, they were heard together and are disposed of by a single judgment. The petition are directed against a common order of the Labour Court, Jaipur passed on December, 7, 1987 in a proceeding u/s 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act). By the impugned order, the Learned Judge of the Labour Court allowed the workmens applications and directed the employer to pay fifty percent wages to them. Both, the workmen and the employer feel aggrieved by the said order. The employer is the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, who will be hearinafter referred to as the JDA, or the Management or the employer. 2. Facts first........................ 3. The facts are common in all the writ petitions and may be borrowed or recited from JDA Vs. Chand Singh. The five workmen Chand Singh, Mohan Lal, Suresh, Nirmal Sharma B. Joseph and Shiv Prakash were employed as Munshies in the Enforcement Division of JDA at the relevant time in November 1984. The management by its order Annexure-1 dated November 30, 1984 transferred them along with 176 others to the different wings as mentioned therein The Association of the workmen challenged the transfer order Annexure-1 by instituting a civil suit in the Court of Additional Munsif(2), Jaipur City, Jaipur on 7 12 1984 and prayed for pendente-lite injunction. The Munsif issued notice to the JDA and heard both the parties. He, thereafter by his order dated 12. 12.-1984 issued pendente-lite injunction directing the JDA to maintain the status ante existing on the date of the institution of the suit The workmen were, however relieved from their posts of Munshies in Enforcement Division on 10.12. 1984 vide Annexure-2. The JDA went in appeal before the District Judge. The District Judge by his judgment dated 23.2 1985 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Munsif and vacated the pendente-lite injunction. The Assocition came in revision to this Court. The revision was admitted and the operation of the order of the District Judge dated 23.2 85 was stayed on 28 2.85. The Association prayed for clarification/modification of the order dated 28. 2. 85. Since no ambiguity was there in the stay order granted on 28.2.85, the application for clarification/modification was dismissed on 24.5.1985. by this court. Somewhere in Nov. The revision was admitted and the operation of the order of the District Judge dated 23.2 85 was stayed on 28 2.85. The Association prayed for clarification/modification of the order dated 28. 2. 85. Since no ambiguity was there in the stay order granted on 28.2.85, the application for clarification/modification was dismissed on 24.5.1985. by this court. Somewhere in Nov. 1985, the workmen were promoted to the posts of Junior Assistants. They joined their new posts of promotion. However, the wages to the workmen for the period from 1.11.1984 to 30.10 1985 was not paid by the JDA. According to the workmen they reported themselves on duty before the management but the management neither took work from them nor permitted them to mark their presence in the attendance register. The workmen, therefore, submitted applica-tions u/s 33-C(2) of the act in the Court of Labour Court Judge, Jaipur for the computation and payment of the wages for the period fron 1.11.84 to 31.10.85. The applications were opposed by the JDA on the ground that the workmen did not turn up for duty nor they discharged any work. The allegation that they reported themselves on duty but no work was taken from them was entirely false and baseless. Since the workmen did not report themselves on duty and discharged no work, they were not entitled for computation and payment of wages for the period from 1.11.84 to 31.10.1985. Evidence was adduced by both the parties On the conclusion of enquiry, the learned Judge held that the workmen reported themselves for duty but performed no work. The JDA did not take work from them. The workmen were, therefore, entitled to get fifty per cent of their wages and not more. He accordingly passed the impugned order Annexure-12 on 7.12. 1987. Both the parties feel aggrieved with the said order. The contention of the management is that since no work was performed by the workmen during the disputed period, they were not entitled to get any wages for that period. The grievance of the workmen is that they reported themselves on duty but work was not taken from them by the management. They are, therefore, entitled to get full wages for the disputed period. 4. We have heard Mr. M.R. Calla, learned counsel for the workmen and Mr. R.S. Mehta learned counsel for the JDA. The grievance of the workmen is that they reported themselves on duty but work was not taken from them by the management. They are, therefore, entitled to get full wages for the disputed period. 4. We have heard Mr. M.R. Calla, learned counsel for the workmen and Mr. R.S. Mehta learned counsel for the JDA. We shall first deal with the contentions raised by Mr. Mehta. 5. In impeaching the impugned order, the first contention raised by Mr. Mehta is that no application for payment of wages is maintainable u/s 33-C(2) of the act. It was argued that the proper form for recovery of the wages is to file an application u/s 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the prescribed Authority, Reliance in support of the contention was placed on section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act. 6. We find no force or merit in the contention of Mr. Mehta. Section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act excludes the jurisdiction of the court to entertain a suit in respect of the matter entrusted to the jurisdiction of the Authority con-strtuted u/s 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. The Labour Court cannot be regarded as a court of general jurisdiction. Section 22 speaks about the bar for instituting a suit. It does not bar the institution of an application for recovery of wages u/s 33-C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court is not a Civil Court. As such its jurisdiction to entertain an application u/s 33-C(2) of the act for payment of wages to a workman is not barred by virtue of the provisions of section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act Sec. 22 in terms does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Labour Court for two reasons. (1) that the Labour Court is not a civil court and (2) the application u/s 33-C(2) of the act cannot be equated with the suit. The contention has no substance and is turned down. 7. It was next argued by Mr. Mehta that the scope of Sec. 33-C 2) does not include a case of the arrears of wages withheld by the employer. We again find the contention ineffective and without substance. Section 33-C(2) is comprehensive and covers a case for the computation of the arrears of wages not paid to the workmen by the employer for one reason or the other. 8. We again find the contention ineffective and without substance. Section 33-C(2) is comprehensive and covers a case for the computation of the arrears of wages not paid to the workmen by the employer for one reason or the other. 8. The legislature has given an individual workmen a speedy, inexpensive and expenditious remedy to enforce his individual right u/s 33-C(2) of the act without having to wait for the Union to espouse his case. Sub-section (2) is wide and comprehensive include arrears of wages which may have been withheld or not paid by the employer. We are fortified in our submission by a decision of this Court given in Municipal Board Merta Vs. The Labour Commissioner (1). 9. The next contention of Mr. Mehta is that the stay granted by this Court on 28.2,85 staying the operation of the order of District Judge dated 23.2.85 was vacated by this Court on 24.5.85. It was, therefore, incumbent on the workmen to join their new place of posting mentioned in Annexure-1 because the order of the District Judge become effective due to the withdrawal of the stay order. We find no life in the contention. The workmen moved for seeking clarification/modification of the stay order dated 28.2.85 vide their application Annexure-4. The order passed on this application on 24.5,85 is Annexure-5. This order does not show that the stay was withdrawn or vacated. It was stated that as their was no ambiguity in the stay order granted on 28.2.85, no clarification or modification was required. We are unable to read anything in Annex-ure-5 to support Mr. Mehta that the stay granted on 28.2.85 was withdrawn or vacated. 10. The last contention of Mr. Mehta is that since the workmen did not turn up on duty and discharged no work, they were not entitled to any wages. The Labour Court acted very liberally in granting fifty percent of wages to them. 11. We may also deal with the contention of the workmen at this stage along with above contention of the JDA. The contention of the workmen is that they had reported themselves on duty for the period from 1.11.1984 to 31.10.85. The management did not take work from them on the post of Munshies in the Enforcement Division because the management got annoyed with them as they had obtained pendente-lite injunction staying the operation of the transfer order Annexure-1. The contention of the workmen is that they had reported themselves on duty for the period from 1.11.1984 to 31.10.85. The management did not take work from them on the post of Munshies in the Enforcement Division because the management got annoyed with them as they had obtained pendente-lite injunction staying the operation of the transfer order Annexure-1. The blame for their not working cannot be placed on their shoulder. The Judge of the Labour Court on the one hand held that they reported tbemeselves for duty and yet on the other hand awarded only fifty per-cent wages to them This approach of the Labour Court is erroneous and unsustainable. 12. Annexure-12 is the impugned order/award of the Labour Court. In paras 4 and 5 of it. the Labour Court has recorded the findings that the workmen appeared in the office of the JDA but work was not taken from them. It was further observed that when the workmen reported themselves on duty, it was expected from the management to take work from them or to allow them to work. , 13. The aforesaid finding of the Labour Court has not been challenged by the management before us. There are more than one reason to infer that the workman must have reported themselves for duty in the employers office from Nov. 84 to October, 1985. They submitted 177 documents which are their applications in the employers office. These documents lead to the inference that the workmen reported themselves on duty. In case the workmen had not reported themselves on duty, it amounted to a misconduct on their part. It could also show that they had abandoned the job. It was expected that the management would have iniciated inquiry against this misconduct or would have terminated the services on account of contnoious absence. Nothing was done by the management. We, therefore, endorse the finding of the Labour Court that the workmen did report themselves on duty but the management did not take work from them. 14. It appears that the management got annoyed with the workmen as they instituted a suit challenging the transfer order Annex-1, This annoyance or displeasure continued more vigorously when the operation of Annexure-1 was stayed by the Civil Court. After all what the workman can do is to report himself on duty It is with the employer to take work from him or not. After all what the workman can do is to report himself on duty It is with the employer to take work from him or not. The workman cannot snatch the work from the employer. It rests on the sweet will of the employer to take or not take work from the workmen. But the workmen cannot be denied the wages when he reports himself on duty but the work is not taken from him by the employer. 15. We find no logic in the approach of the Labour Court in awarding only fifty per cent wages to the Workmen. The Labour Court has not recorded a finding that the workmen refused to work. There is, therefore no logic in awarding only fifty Per cent of wages to the workmen. They are entitled to get full wages for the relevant period. 16. In the result: (1) The writ petitions No. 3044/88, 3047/88, 3048/88, 3049/88 and 3050/88 filed by the Jaipur Development Authority are dismissed. (2) The writ petitions (1) No. 367/87 Mohan Lal vs. JDA (2) 371/87 Sharma B. Joseph Vs. JDA (3) 372/88 Suresh Nirmal Vs. JDA (4) 373/88 Chand Singh Vs. JDA and (5) 374/88 Shiv Prakash Mathur Vs. J.D A. are allowed. The Jaipur Development Authority is directed to pay full wages to these workmen for the period from 1.11.1984 to 31.10. 1985. The impugned award/order of the Labour Court, Jaipur dated December 7, 1987 will stand modified and amended accordingly. 17. No. order as to costs.