Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board vs Presiding Officer

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—By this writ petition, the employer is challenging the award of the Labour Court u/s 33-C(2) by which it had calculated and awarded the back wages. Earlier to thai, services of respondent No. 2 were terminated on 8.12.1987. The Labour Court by its award Annexure P/1 dated 15.11.1988 ordered reinstatement with full back wages. Respondent No. 2 was reinstated. The amount calculated in the impugned award/order are reproduced in para No. 8 of the same, which is at Annexure P/4. It is as under :-

"8. The applicant has claimed wages as under :-

Period

Wages

Claim

1.8.1987 to 13.12.1987

1436/-

7180.00

1.1.1988 to 31.5.1988

1490/-

7480.00

1.6.1988 to 3.12.1938

1531/-

10717.00

1.1.1989 to 3 .5.1989

1667/-

8335.00

1.6.1989 to 21.12.1989

1705/-

11935.00

1.1.1990 to 31.5.1990

1819/-

9095.00

1.6.1990 to 30.6.1990

1860/-

1860.00

1.7.1990 to 31.12.1990

1925/-

11550.00

1.1.1991 to 35.1991

2028/-

10140.00

1.6.1991 to 312.1991

2237/-

15659.00

1.1.1992 to 30.7.1992

2402/-

16814.00

1.8.1992 to 30.10.1992

2670/-

8010.00

Bonus for 1989-90 to 1991-92

4800.00

Dress 1989-92

6000.00

Total

1,27,725.00

Counsel for the petitioner argued that bonus could not have been awarded because the definition of "wages" as per Section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") specifically mentions that wages do not include bonus and therefore, the term back-wages should not include bonus amount. Nothing contrary to this proposition has been shown to us. Therefore, we find proper to deduct the amount of Rs. 4800/- granted under the hand "Bonus" from 1989-90 to 1991-92.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Rs. 49,984/- for the period between 8.12.1987 to 8.7.1992 has already been paid. This averment has been made in the petition also. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 does not dispute this amount being paid but has argued that this amount was not for back wages. He is not able to show was to for what reason this amount was paid to respondent No. 2. In view of this position, we accept the statement of the petitioner in this writ petition and the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. Therefore, out of the amount, Rs. 49,984/-wilt have to be deducted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Labour Court has observed that respondent No. 2 was entitled to back wages at the rate of minimum wages fixed by the Government from time to time but he is not awarded the amount as per the minimum wages. He has tried to substantiate from paragraph No. 7 of this petition. However, he has given the approximate figures of the prescribed wages and except this, nothing has been shown as to what were the prescribed minimum wages. We cannot rely on the approximate figure. This being the position, we do not hold that there was any infirmity in calculations by the Labour Court so far as the minimum wages are concerned.

In view of this position, this petilion is partly allowed. Out of the awarded amount, Rs. 4800/- and Rs. 49,984/- (total Rs. 54,784/-) are ordered to be deducted. Rest of the order/award is affirmed.

Petition partly allowed.