AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Harinder Singh Sidhu, J.
This application has been filed praying for extension of time of one week for implementation of the order dated 08.01.2014 passed by this Court in LPA-1348 of 2013.
The applicant-appellant had challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 30.04.2014, directing reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and 25% back wages payable from the date of demand notice by filing CWP No. 3997 of 2012. The case of the respondent was that he had worked as Supervisor/Mate with the appellant w.e.f. 01.02.2000 to 18.05.2005 and his services had been illegally terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 14.03.2013 against which, the applicant-appellant filed LPA.
During hearing of LPA, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-workman stated that he is interested in service and would give up the claim for back wages. In view of the concession of respondent No. 1, the order of the Ld. Single Judge was modified to the extent of grant of 25% back wages to respondent No. 1-workman.
While disposing of the LPA vide order dated 08.01.2014, it was directed as under:
"The appellant is directed to join respondent No. 1-workman in service within three weeks from today failing which respondent No. 1-workman may claim 25% back wages."
It transpires that as respondent No. 1-workman was not joined within the three weeks period stipulated in the order which expired on 29.1.2014, hence he filed an application before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (SD), Panipat, for implementation of the award and claimed 25% back wages. The application was registered as Misc. Application No. 24/13 and vide orders dated 29.11.2014, the appellant was directed to pay 25% back wages by 03.01.2015, failing which, it was directed that the Additional General Manager, HOD (P&A) of the applicant-appellant shall appear in person.
After the passing of that order, the applicant-appellant has moved the present Misc. Application praying for extension of time for implementing the order dated 8.1.2014 by one week. It has been stated in the application that the certified copy of the order dated 08.01.2014 was received from this Court directly on 22.01.2014 and counsel representing the appellant-applicant received the same on 24.01.2014 and supplied it to the applicant-appellant along with his letter dated 25.01.2014. Immediately, thereafter, legal opinion of the counsel representing the applicant-appellant was sought on 24.01.2014 with respect to the mode of engagement and joining of respondent-workman. The legal opinion was received on 29.01.2014 and immediately, thereafter the case was put up by the concerned Division to the competent authority on 29.01.2014 for seeking approval for engaging the respondent-workman on daily wage basis and on the same day, approval was granted and the Head Office issued a letter also on the same day to the respondent-workman to report for duty to AGM (IA), HSIDC, Industrial Estate, Barhi, Sonepat. It is thereby stated that the delay in joining the workman was totally beyond the control of applicant-appellant and accordingly, extension of time by one week is prayed for.
Reply to the application has been filed by the respondent-workman. It has been stated that the joining order issued by the applicant was despatched to him on 30.01.2014, which was received by him on 01.02.2014 and as the next day was Sunday, hence the respondent-workman could join only on 03.02.2014.
Referring to the past conduct of the applicant-appellant, it has been stated that award was passed by the learned Labour Court on 21.03.2012 directing his reinstatement with continuity and 25% back wages. He submitted his joining report on 11.06.2012. Instead of complying with the award, the applicant-appellant filed CWP-13997-2012 which was dismissed on 14.03.2013. Thereafter, again he submitted his joining report on 15.04.2013 but still the judgment of this Court was not complied with and applicant-appellant preferred LPA-1348-2013, which was dismissed on 08.01.2014 in presence of counsel for the applicant-appellant and they were directed to join him in service within three weeks from the date of judgment i.e. 08.01.2014 failing which the workman may claim 25% back wages. The three weeks period expired on 28.01.2014 and the joining order was despatched to him on 30.01.2014 after the expiry of three weeks period.
The respondent-workman states that he has been litigating against his illegal termination since 2006 when he first served demand notice on 3.2.2006. He states that he is a handicapped person having 70% disability. He has four school going children, of whom one is a daughter studying in B.Sc. Ist year, the second daughter is studying in 10+2, a son is studying in 10+1 and a daughter is studying in 9th class. It is stated that 25% of his salary comes to Rs. 1,67,874/- and he has had to incur a huge expenditure in the litigation since 2006.
It is also pointed out that the instant application has been filed after a lapse of about 1 year of the original order dated 08.01.2014, which has since attained finality and present application be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the present application deserves to be dismissed. By the order dated 08.01.2014 the appellant was directed to join respondent No1 in service within three weeks from the date of passing of order failing which the respondent-workman may claim 25% back wages. It was a peremptory order passed in the presence of counsel for the parties and hence, the applicant-appellant was expected to initiate compliance therewith immediately, failing which it would necessarily have to bear the consequences. No doubt, after the receipt of the certified copy of the order, the applicant-appellant hastened the process of appointment but it certainly missed the three weeks period specified in the order dated 08.01.2014. Even thereafter, being fully aware that the order has not been complied with within the specified three weeks period, the applicant-appellant did not move an application for extension of time. It was only when the respondent-workman filed an application for implementation of the award and the order dated 29.11.2014 was passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (SD), Panipat directing it to pay 25% back wages by 03.01.2015 failing which the Additional Managing Director was to appear in person that the applicant-appellant woke up from its slumber and filed the present application seeking extension of time. There is no explanation forthcoming in the application as to why the present application was moved after a delay of almost one year.
The respondent-workman has been agitating against his illegal termination since the year 2006 and must have incurred considerable expenses besides the agony of being forced to go from one Court to another to defend his claim. The order directing that respondent-workman be joined in service within three weeks failing which he may claim 25% back wages was passed to ensure that the benefit of the decision is immediately available to him. He is a handicapped person having 70% disability. The amount that would have to be paid to him is not too large.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant the prayer of the applicant-appellant for extension of time and the application is accordingly dismissed. The back-wages shall be paid within four weeks from today.