Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 224 (HP)

PAMWI TISSUES LTD. v. PRESIDING JUDGE

2003-08-08

A.K.GOEL

body2003
JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J, (Oral): Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner-Company is aggrieved with the order dated 27.4.2000, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, H.P Labour Court, Shimla, in Application No.207/1996. 2. Before proceeding with the contentions urged at the time of hearing in this case, it is necessary to refer to the chequered history of this case. Admittedly, the respondent No.2 was working in the factory of the petitioner. His services were terminated on 5.12.1989. Respondent No.2 claims that the termination of his services was not in accordance with law. Therefore, after having received failure before the Conciliation Officer, the matter was referred by the respondent No.3 to the Labour Court for adjudication in accordance with the provisions Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. 3. Vide Award dated 22.2.1993, respondent No.2 was ordered to be reengaged in terms of the said Award with full back wages. He resumed duty on 27.9.1993. Here parties at variance. Petitioner-company alleges that he did not join despite having been called upon to do so, whereas respondent No.2 claims that he did go to resume duty, but was not allowed to enter the factory premises by the security staff. In this background, he sent written communications to the petitioner. Pursuant to it, the received reply and then he joined on 27.9.1993. 4. After having resuming duty, petitioner put respondent No.2 under suspension on 8.2.1994. He remained under suspension till 11.5.1995, when he was reinstated. 5. In the aforesaid background, an application under Section 33-C (2) of thee Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 was filed by the petitioner before the learned Labour Court. This was contested and resisted by the petitioner. Amongst others, main stay of the petitioner was that the application was not maintainable, as the claim of the workman was not based on any existing right, award or settlement Delay was also set up as a ground to defeat his claim. Lastly, it was urged that the entire amount stands paid. 6. Learned Labour Court framed following issues and thereafter held that the respondent No.2 entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,633/-. It allowed interest at the rate of 12 % on this amount from the date of institution i.e. 31.7.1996. The amount was ordered to be paid within 40 days. 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to recover Rs.25633.81 paise on the grounds as alleged? 2. 25,633/-. It allowed interest at the rate of 12 % on this amount from the date of institution i.e. 31.7.1996. The amount was ordered to be paid within 40 days. 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to recover Rs.25633.81 paise on the grounds as alleged? 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable on the grounds as alleged? 3. Relief. 7. It is this Award, Annexure P-4 which is challenged in this writ petition. 8. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this writ petition deserves to be allowed for the simples reason that the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act was not maintainable before the labour Court. Reason being that there was no benefit available to respondent No.2 which was capable of being paid in terms of money. Further submission urged by the learned counsel was, that so far as wages in terms of the order of the learned Labour Court in the earlier Reference decided on 22.2.1993, are concerned those were fully liquidated. Thereafter no award or settlement was there to enable the respondent No.2 to invoke Section 33-C (2) supra. 9. Admittedly, after suspension on 8.2.1994, the respondent No. 2 was reinstated on 11.5.1995, though enquiry was held against him by the petitioner. However, no action was taken. Therefore, only one and irresistible conclusion that falls from this is, that suspension of the respondent No.2 was not consonance with the provisions of law nor could the same be justified. Reason for holding so is that in case respondent No. 2 has been found guilty far an act of misdemeanor / misconduct, he would have been dealt with by the petitioner as a fall out of the enquiry report, Admittedly, no such action was taken. On a point of fact, this position could not be disputed on behalf of the petitioner. Nor anything is pleaded in the writ petition. 10. Once this conclusion is arrived at, then to say that the respondent No.2 was not entitled to the wages for such period, and/or being not entitled to monetary benefit within the meaning of Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, would be nothing but a complete mis-reading as well as mis-interpretation of this provisions of law. 11. Looking to this case from another angle also supports the above view. If the argument addressed by Mr. 11. Looking to this case from another angle also supports the above view. If the argument addressed by Mr. Mandhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner is taken to its logical, its result would be that a person like, respondent No.2 though suspended without any action being taken against him and thereafter being reinstated, when makes a claim for the payment of wages that he was drawing on the date of suspension till he was reinstated-re-engaged, is; nothing bit a unfair labour practice as also an act which had no legal sanction behind it. It is further not the case of the petitioner that either prior to his suspension or after its revocation respondent No.2 wage was not ascertained muchless known to the petitioner. As such the argument on behalf of the petitioner that application under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Dispute Act was not maintainable before the Labour Court can not be accepted. Similarly to say that the relief could not be calculated in terms of money is also without any basis on the facts of this case. And is thus rejected. 12. To be fair to Mr. Mandhotra, it may be noted that it is respondent No.2 who did not report at the factory gate during suspension period which dis-entitled him to claim the suspension allowance. This argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the respondent No.2 was reinstated without any stigma/punishment or any other warning etc. Lastly, reliance was placed by him on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak & another (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 235. In this judgment, the Honble Supreme Court held that the Labour Court cannot adjudicate the dispute of entitlement of basis of claim of workmen. It can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based. Its jurisdiction is like that of executing Court. After laying down this principle of law on the facts of the case, the decision, was given. In the instant case, on the basis of award dated 22.2.1993 admittedly the respondent No.2 was reinstated. It was thereafter on 11.2.1994 he was suspended till he re-engaged in May, 1995. As such to say that Court was either not interpreting the Award or the benefit could not be calculated terms of money on the part of the petitioner is not correct. It was thereafter on 11.2.1994 he was suspended till he re-engaged in May, 1995. As such to say that Court was either not interpreting the Award or the benefit could not be calculated terms of money on the part of the petitioner is not correct. Wages being known to the petitioner, being employer of respondent No.2 latter had only asked for enforcing those after his suspension was revoked. 13. No other points urged. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs. The amount had been deposited terms of the orders of this Court. The same is ordered to be remitted to respondent No.2 by the Registry with upto date interest if any. Account No. be furnished within three weeks. CMP No. 742/2003 No orders in view of the orders passed in the main matter.