Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 891 (DEL)

SATISH KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

2009-08-13

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2009
JUDGEMNT S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The workman in this writ petition filed against the management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (the respondent herein) is aggrieved by an order dated 20.02.2009 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator on his application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 praying for wages for the period from 01.12.2002 to 21.08.2005 in terms of industrial award dated 12.03.2001 in ID No.638/1990 in his favour. 2 Ms. Saroj Bidawat is present on behalf of the respondent in response to notice of this writ petition and she says that since the writ petition involves a pure legal question, the Court may hear and decide the present writ petition without counter affidavit. 3 I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties. 4 Briefly stated that the facts of the case relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that he was appointed as ward boy with the respondent w.e.f. 18.09.1984 and his services were terminated w.e.f. 04.07.1986. Aggrieved by his termination he raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court and was registered as ID No.638/1990. The Industrial Adjudicator vide his award dated 12.03.2001 in ID No.638/1990 directed reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages and continuity of service. The respondent was aggrieved by the said award and challenged the same by filing a writ petition in this Court being W.P.(C) No. 3242/2002 but the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 20.07.2004 and the award dated 12.03.2001 in favour of the petitioner became final. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated by the respondent in its service in terms of award dated 12.03.2001 w.e.f. 22.08.2005. However, while the above referred writ petition filed by the respondent was pending in this Court, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 33 (C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 30.11.2002 and had claimed back wages for the period from 09.07.1986 to 30.11.2002. This amount claimed by the petitioner on account of back wages for the period from 09.07.1986 to 30.11.2002 was recovered by way of issuance of recovery certificate. After the petitioner was reinstated w.e.f. 22.08.2005, he filed another application under Section 33(C)(2) and claimed back wages for the period from 01.12.2002 till 21.08.2005. This amount claimed by the petitioner on account of back wages for the period from 09.07.1986 to 30.11.2002 was recovered by way of issuance of recovery certificate. After the petitioner was reinstated w.e.f. 22.08.2005, he filed another application under Section 33(C)(2) and claimed back wages for the period from 01.12.2002 till 21.08.2005. This application under Section 33(C)(2) filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Industrial Adjudicator vide its impugned order on the ground that second execution application for implementation of the same award does not lie. Ms. Saroj Bidawat learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the petitioner was not paid back wages for the period from 01.12.2002 till 21.08.2005 as according to her the award dated 12.03.2001 in favour of the petitioner was silent regarding the payment of back wages up to the date of reinstatement. However, she does not dispute the legal proposition that a workman can file more than one execution application in case the award remained unimplemented till the time he was reinstated. The reasoning contained in the impugned order that the second execution application for implementation of the award in question did not lie is absolutely perverse. It may be noted that the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with back wages vide award dated 12.03.2001 in ID No.638/1990. Though the award in his favour was passed by the Industrial Adjudicator on 12.03.2001 but he was actually reinstated in service of the respondent w.e.f. 22.08.2005 after dismissal of its writ petition by this Court on 20.07.2004. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the delay caused by the respondent in his reinstatement as directed in the award of the Industrial Adjudicator referred above. In terms of the said award, the petitioner was entitled to back wages till the date of his reinstatement. The petitioner had to rush to the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) as the respondent failed to pay him wages for the period from 01.12.2002 till 21.08.2005. In fact, the respondent itself should have made the payment to the petitioner on account of wages for the period from 01.12.2002 to 21.08.2005 as the payment for the said period admittedly remained unpaid to him. The respondent should not expect for its employees every time rush to the Court for getting the legitimate dues even after they are adjudicated and crystallized in the award of the Industrial Adjudicator. The respondent should not expect for its employees every time rush to the Court for getting the legitimate dues even after they are adjudicated and crystallized in the award of the Industrial Adjudicator. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of the Industrial Adjudicator is hereby set aside. This writ petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay the wages to the petitioner for the period from 01.12.2002 to 21.08.2005 within a period of eight weeks from today. The parties are left to bear their own costs.