Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 646 (AP)

G. Sammaiah v. Mandal Revenue Officer

2012-07-26

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2012
Judgment : The petitioner was engaged by the Executive Engineer of Warangal District Scheduled Caste Service Co-operative Society Limited, the 2nd respondent herein, on daily wage basis. Complaining that he was removed from service, contrary to Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), he filed I.D.No.123 of 1991 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal. An award was passed in the I.D., on 25.06.1994, setting aside the order of removal and directing reinstatement of the petitioner into service, without back-wages, but with continuity of service. The 2nd respondent issued an order for reinstatement of the petitioner on daily wage basis. The petitioner did not join the duty on the ground that his appointment ought to have been as Site Engineer, with scale of pay. Therefore, he filed E.P.No.43 of 1994. The E.P was allowed on 30.10.1996. Ultimately, the petitioner was issued orders of appointment on 18.12.1996, and the E.P was closed, in terms thereof. The petitioner filed Miscellaneous Petition No.2 of 1997, under Section 33(C) of the Act, claiming a sum of Rs.76,320/-, representing the unpaid wages, from 31.10.1994 to 17.12.1996. He pleaded that the failure on the part of the 2nd respondent to reinstate him into service, forthwith, has resulted in loss of wages, and that he is entitled to be paid the same. The 2nd respondent opposed the matter. Through its order, dated 04.01.2000, the Labour Court dismissed the M.P. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the Labour Court was not justified in denying him, the relief under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act. He contends that he was entitled to be reinstated into service, in terms of the award, and the delay on the part of the respondents in reinstating him into service cannot be countenanced. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit. According to him, though an order of reinstatement was issued, the petitioner did not report to duty, and he went on demanding the appointment as Site Engineer, with scale of pay. Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application, when undisputedly the respondents did not pay the salary, for the period from 31.10.1994 to 17.12.1996. She contends that failure on the part of the respondents to pay the salary has defeated the directions issued by the Tribunal in its award in the I.D., as regards reinstatement and continuity of service. She contends that failure on the part of the respondents to pay the salary has defeated the directions issued by the Tribunal in its award in the I.D., as regards reinstatement and continuity of service. Learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submits that when the very reinstatement was on the strength of an order passed in the E.P., the petitioner cannot maintain a separate application under Section 33 of the Act. The petitioner challenged the action of the respondents in removing him from service, in violation of Section 25 of the Act by filing I.D.No.123 of 1991. In its award, dated 25.06.1994, the Labour Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service. Some uncertainty prevailed, in the context of reinstatement of the petitioner. While the respondents insisted that the petitioner was only on daily wages, when he was discontinued from service, the petitioner insisted that he must be reinstated as Site Engineer. Ultimately, the petitioner filed E.P.No.43 of 1984 and he came to be reinstated, on 18.12.1996 on the basis of the orders passed in the E.P., on 30.10.1996. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was only on daily wages by the time he was retrenched or discontinued. The reinstatement can be only in that capacity. The delay in the matter of compliance with the award occurred on account of the insistence by the petitioner that he be employed as Site Engineer. No record was placed before the Labour Court to suggest that he held that post when he was retrenched. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the wages for the period during which he was not reinstated. Even otherwise, if the petitioner was of the view that he is entitled to be paid wages for the period between the date of award and 18.12.1996 on which date the E.P. was closed, he ought to have made a request in that behalf in the execution petition itself. He was not entitled to file a separate application for the period that preceded the date of order in the E.P. An application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act can be filed only in respect of recovery of amount either which was already adjudicated or as regards which there is no dispute. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to file the application under that provision. The Labour Court has taken the correct view of the matter. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to file the application under that provision. The Labour Court has taken the correct view of the matter. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of.