AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Jhaveri, J.—This petition is directed against the judgement and award dated 4th November 2003 passed by Labour Court, Vadodara in Recovery Application No. 274 of 1990 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay tot he respondent an amount of Rs. 62275.50 by way of back wages.
The respondent herein was serving as Conductor with the petitioner Corporation. For the alleged misconduct he was dismissed from service with effect from 23rd May 1980. Respondent challenged the order of dismissal by way of Complaint (IT) No. 15 of 1984 wherein the Industrial Court passed order dated 3rd May 1986 directing that the respondent is deemed to be reinstated with effect from 20th September 1982 with continuity of service and his two yearly increments were stopped with future effect from 20.9.1982. It was further directed that the respondent shall not be entitled to back wages. In pursuance of the said order the respondent was reinstated on 19th July 1986 and after a delay of four years the respondent filed Recovery Application No. 1990 being Recovery Application No. 274 of 1990 for getting salary from 20th September 1982 to 19th July 1986. The said application was dismissed on the ground of delay and the respondent had approached this Court and ultimately the mater was remanded to hear on merits and the Labour Court passed the aforesaid judgement and award.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is illegal inasmuch as the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned award. He further submitted that there was no direction for the back wages and the executing court cannot go beyond the decree.
Learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that the judgement and award passed by the Labour Court is just and proper and no interference is warranted.
Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the relevant record. The only question to be decided in the present case whether there was any direction for back wages or not.
As a result of hearing and perusal of the record the original direction issued by the Labour Court is as under:
...the cause of delay of the complaint is due tot he workman. Under the circumstances, it is hereby ordered that: "the workman be reinstated in the service from the date of complaint I.e. 20.9.1982 and the period prior to it, the admissible earned leave, be treated as leave without pay admissible to him and continuity of his service be maintained, and it is further ordered that the admissible two yearly increments due to him after his resumption is ordered to be withheld with future effect. Under the circumstances, if order as above is passed the ends of justice would be met and the economical loss to the workman on account of his dismissal shall be reduced as well. In view of the above facts, I pass the following order:
The complaint in this case be reinstated in the service form date 29.9.1982, but the leave salary admissible to him is ordered to be converted into leave without pay for the period during which he was under dismissal from the service from the date 23.5.1980 to the date 29.9.1982 and it is held to maintain his continuity of service. Further, two yearly increments admissible are ordered to be withheld with future effect after his resumption on 20.9.1982.
It is found that the original recommendation is only with regard to continuity of service and reinstatement. There is no direction by the Labour Court for back wages. In spite of this fact the Labour Court has awarded back wages. It is by now well settled law that the the executing court cannot go beyond the decree. In the present case the executing court has travelled beyond the decree and granted back wages and therefore the decree becomes perverse.
In the premises aforesaid, the impugned judgement and award of the Labour Court is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.