AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aravind Kumar
Corporation is seeking for quashing of the order passed by III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore in application No. 5/2009 dated 30.07.2011, Annexure-A.
One Sri. M. Mallikarjunappa was working as a conductor and was dismissed from service on 10.02.1983 which was questioned by the workman before the Additional Labour Court, Bangalore in Reference No. 99/1984 and Labour Court by its order and award dated 12.03.1991 set aside the order of dismissal and directed the management to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and back wages from the date of dismissal till date of reinstatement. Aggrieved by the said award, corporation preferred a writ petition before this court in W.P. 18359/91 and this court allowed the writ petition in part vide order dated 16.09.1991 and modified the award by holding that the workman is entitled to 75% of back wages. Corporation filed further appeal before this court in W.A.2940/91 which also came to be dismissed on 04.12.1991 thereby confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The said workman was reinstated into service on 18.02.1992 and on attaining the age of superannuation he was retired from service on 06.05.1993.
On account of non payment of back wages as ordered on 16.09.91 by this court in W.P. 18359/91 workman filed an application u/s 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking for a direction to the respondent therein to pay a sum of Rs. 1,34,189/- with interest from the date of dismissal till date of payment. On registering the application, Labour Court issued notice to the respondent/corporation and respondent/corporation filed its statement of objections denying the claim made by the workman. The applicant/workman during the pendency of the proceedings before Labour Court, workman expired and his wife and children came on record as his legal heirs. Wife of the deceased workman got herself examined as AW-1 and got marked Exhibits A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the respondent/corporation one witness examined as RW-1 and no documents were marked. After consideration of pleadings, evidence and records, Labour Court by its award dated 30.07.2011 allowed the application and directed the respondent/corporation to make payment of Rs. 1,34,189/- to the applicants 1 and 2 who are legal heirs of deceased workman within a period of three months from the date of order failing which, it was held that it would carry interest @ 6% p.a. It is this order/award which is questioned in the present writ petition.
Heard Sri. H.M. Muralidhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sree Ranga Associates. Perused the award as also annexures appended to the writ petition. The fact that deceased workman was dismissed from service and he had raised a dispute in Reference No. 99/1984 before the Labour Court and order of dismissal being set aside by Labour court which came to be confirmed by this court in W.P. 18359/91 with modification holding that workman is entitled to 75% of back wages are undisputed facts. The fact that order of learned Single Judge affirming the order of Labour Court in W.A.2940/91 by Division Bench of this Court on 04.12.1991 is also not disputed. It is the contention of Sri. H.M. Muralidhar that after a gap of 16 years, the deceased workman raised a dispute by filing an application u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and said application was highly belated and same was not maintainable. He would also elaborate his submission by contending that admittedly the amount claimed by deceased workman was arising out of a award and as such it would come within the ambit of section 33-C(2) and application should be filed within one year and to overcome the limitation, deceased workman invoked section 33-C(2) and as such he seeks for allowing the writ petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and also on considering the grounds urged in the writ petition as also the contentions raised it is noticed that issue regarding award of 75% of back wages to the deceased workman had reached finality and it was incumbent upon the corporation to comply with the orders passed by this court in its true letter and spirit. Having not clone so and after the workman approached the corporation with repetitive representations that too in vain and left with no other option, he approached the labour Court by invoking Section 33-C(2). A perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court as also claim made by deceased workman before Labour Court would clearly go to show that repeated representations made and plea put forward by the workman to settle 75% back wages as ordered by this court has not resulted in payment and as such the applicant/workman has stated In paragraph 6 of his application as to why he has approached the Labour Court belatedly. Though there might be some considerable force in the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner with regard to delay, I am of the considered view that delay should not defeat substantial justice being administered particularly when a statutory corporation has been directed by this court to pay 75% back wages, there is a duty cast on it to comply with the orders of this court and make the payment to the workman. However the contention raised in the writ petition before this court for the first time is that on account of non availability of records, the corporation was unable to demonstrate with regard to payment. Such contention cannot be countenanced in as much as corporation having its separate accounts branch headed by professional persons cannot take umbrage to stave off the legitimate dues payable to its employees and contend that it is not liable to pay. Thus, corporation having failed to establish that it has paid the amount namely 75% of back wages as ordered by this court, delay even if any cannot ratify its inaction. It is this precise exercise which was undertaken by Labour Court while adjudicating rival contentions and it has come to a conclusion as to what are all the registers that could have been produced by the corporation to demonstrate the payment of amount. Thus, in the absence of corporation demonstrating or proving payment of amount to the deceased workman, the contention now raised cannot be accepted. In so far as contention with regard to maintainability of the application has also been considered by the labour Court at paragraphs 18 and 19 of the award itself to reject the said contention and I am not inclined to disagree with the view expressed by labour Court since it is in consonance, with the provisions of the Act.
Hence, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the present writ petition and accordingly it stands dismissed.