Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2093 (RAJ)

Vasna Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2014-12-11

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT : 1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner claims the award of wages and other benefits for the period between the date of the award (Annex.P/1) dated 20.11.2000 till the date of his reinstatement i.e. 15.11.2003. The petitioner while working as a daily wager with the respondent department was illegally retrenched from service on which he raised an industrial dispute, which was accepted by the Industrial Tribunal and a direction was issued to the department to reinstate the petitioner back in service forthwith. The petitioner was also awarded 50% of back wages from the date of reference to the date of the actual reinstatement. The operative portion of the award dated 20.11.2000 (Annex.P/1) is quoted herein-below for the sake of convenience:- ^^vr% vknsf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vizkFkhZ fu;kstd izkFkhZ dks rqjUr nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed ds :i esa lsok esa iquZLFkkfir djs] izkFkhZ dh lsok,a fujUrj ekuh tkosxh] izkFkhZ jsQjsUl dh frfFk 24 fnlEcj 1996 ls lsok esa iquZLFkkfir fd;s tkus rd dh vof/k dk 50 izfr’kr osru iwoZ Hk`fr ds :i esa vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ?kksf”kr fd;k tkrk gSA bl vf/kfu.kZ; dks izdk’kukFkZ jkT;&’kklu dks izsf”kr fd;k tkosA** [Emphasis supplied] 2. The respondents challenged the award and were unsuccessful up to the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court as detailed in para No.3 of the writ petition. Thus, the award passed by the Tribunal attained finality. The special appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed by this Court on 27.5.2003 and ultimately, the respondents reinstated the petitioner back in service w.e.f. 15.11.2003. 3. The petitioner filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming back wages for the period between 20.11.2000 till 15.11.2003 and also the other several benefits like bonus, surrender, leave etc. 4. The Tribunal partly accepted the said application by order dated 23.11.2007 (Annex.P/8) and directed that the respondents shall make payment of 50% of the wages accrued between the aforesaid period to the petitioner. The petitioner has now approached this Court against the order dated 23.11.2007 (Annex.P/8) passed by the Tribunal claiming that he is entitled to receive payment of full wages with interest during the period, the respondents did not reinstate him back in service. 5. The petitioner has now approached this Court against the order dated 23.11.2007 (Annex.P/8) passed by the Tribunal claiming that he is entitled to receive payment of full wages with interest during the period, the respondents did not reinstate him back in service. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the operative portion of the award which has been reproduced hereinabove clearly stipulates that the respondents shall reinstate the petitioner back in service forthwith. The respondents chose not to comply with the award and challenged the same by filing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2139/2001 before this Court. No stay was granted in their favour and the writ petition came to be dismissed in limine on 12.9.2001. No stay was granted in the Special Appeal No.846/2001 filed against said dismissal, which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 27.5.2003. Learned counsel thus submits that the petitioner cannot be victimised for the inaction of the respondents in complying with the award. He, therefore, prays that the order (Annex.P/8) be modified and the respondents be directed to make payment of the full back wages to the petitioner during the period between 20.11.2000 to 15.11.2003 alongwith interest. 6. Learned Dy.GC appearing on behalf of the State submits that the Tribunal passed an award directing that the petitioner shall be entitled to only 50% back wages from the date of raising of industrial dispute to the date of his reinstatement. Thus, he submits that as the petitioner's reinstatement was carried out on 15.11.2003 he was only entitled to 50% of the wages during this period. 7. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record. 8. A specific direction was passed in the award passed in favour of the petitioner that the respondent shall reinstate the petitioner back in service forthwith. The respondents despite not getting any interim order from this Court in their favour in the writ petition and the special appeal chose not to reinstate the petitioner back in service for a prolonged period of almost three years. Thus, if the petitioner is denied full back wages for the said period, it would virtually amount to victimising him for the inaction on part of the respondents. Thus, if the petitioner is denied full back wages for the said period, it would virtually amount to victimising him for the inaction on part of the respondents. The respondents could have chosen to sleep over the matter for 10 years more but that would not justify the denial of monetary benefits to the petitioner for the period during which he was denied reinstatement due to the arbitrary action of the respondents. Thus, the view taken by the Tribunal whilst deciding the petitioner's application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and directing that the petitioner shall be entitled to only 50% of the wages from the date of the original award dated 20.11.2000 to the date of his reinstatement is unjust and unreasonable. 9. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 23.11.2007 (Annex.P/8) is hereby modified. The respondents are directed to make payment of full wages accrued to the petitioner during the aforesaid period i.e. 20.11.2000 to 15.11.2003. The amount if any paid to the petitioner during this period shall be adjusted against final payment. 10. The amount accrued to the petitioner shall also carry interest @ 6% per annum till realization. The dues shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 12%. 11. No order as to costs.