Madan Lal Chugh vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Panipat and Others

V.K. Bali, J.—Challenge herein is to award Annexure P-3 rendered by Shri Lakshman Sharma, learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court. Panipat dated January 8, 1997 vide which application of the petitioner Madan Lal u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act praying therein that he be held entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 1,91,585/- from the respondent-management being his arrears of wages from December 10, 1985 to March 17, 1993 was dismissed.

The relevant facts reveal that petitioner-workman was employed as Peon in Municipal Committee on December 10, 1985. A case u/s 406/409 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him. The trial continued upto March 4, 1991 when he was acquitted of the charges framed against him. After his acquittal petitioner-workman moved an application u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming his wages for the period he faced the criminal charges u/s 406/409 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the petitioner was opposed by the respondent/management giving rise to the only issue as to whether the workman was entitled to recover the amount mentioned in his application or to any other amount. After resultant trial, as mentioned above, claim of the petitioner was rejected. The Labour Court returned a firm finding of fact that while joining service after his acquittal, workman had given in writing (Ex. Mx.) that he would relinquish his right for wages. A finding was also returned by the Labour Court that during the period the petitioner faced criminal trial, he never reported for duty. He was not entitled to any wages as he has not worked for this period at all.

Nothing at all could be argued to detract from the firm finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court. Apart from that we are in agreement with the contention raised by Shri P. K. Mutenja, learned counsel representing the management that such a claim which was not based on a preexisting right could not possibly be a subject matter of decision u/s 33-C(2) of the AIR 1994 552 (SC) Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak and Another, and Satish Kumar Mahendra v. State of Punjab, 1997 Lab. I.C. 272, to canvass his view point reflected above.

No merits. Dismissed.