AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Z.A. Haq, J—Writ Petition No. 6008/2007 has been filed by the employer challenging the order passed by the Labour Court directing the employer to pay an amount of Rs. 4,32,000/- to the legal representatives of the employee. Writ Petition No. 5604/2009 has been filed by the legal representatives of the employee challenging the same order. The claim of the legal representatives of employee is that they are entitled for interest on the amount of Rs. 4,32,000/-.
Shri Suleman Usman Kacchi/employee filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming an amount of Rs. 4,32,000/-. According to the employee, he was not paid the back wages though his Complaint No. 68/1988 was allowed. The employee also claimed the benefits, leave wages and other monetary benefits for the period from 4th April, 1988 till 31st March, 1997.
The Labour Court allowed the application by the order dated 16th October, 2004, directing the employer to pay Rs. 4,32,000/- to the legal representatives of employee. This order was challenged by the employer before this Court in Writ Petition No. 2715/2005. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court by the judgment dated 12th June, 2007. This Court directed the employer to pay Rs. 3,01,617/- to the legal representatives of the employee, which amount was accepted by the employer as payable to the employee. As far as the claim of the legal representatives for the balance amount was concerned, the matter was remitted to the Labour Court for determining as to whether the legal representatives of the employee were entitled for the balance amount. After remand, the Labour Court by the impugned order has concluded that the legal representatives of the employee are entitled for the amount of Rs. 4,32,000/-.
The employer being aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court has filed Writ Petition No. 6008/2007. The legal representatives of the employee had claimed interest which is not granted. The legal representatives being aggrieved in the matter have filed Writ Petition No. 5604/2009. Both the petitions arise out of the same order and, therefore, they are being disposed of by the common judgment.
Shri Mehadia, the learned advocate for the petitioner/employer has submitted that the Labour Court has not considered the evidence and the documents on the record and has fastened the liability of payment of Rs. 4,32,000/- without there being any basis for the claim of that amount by the respondents. It is submitted that the back wages chart has been filed at Exh. No. 27, copy of service book has been filed at Exh. No. 25 and copy of pay fixation order has been filed at Exh. No. 24 which show the details of the amount receivable by the employee and the Labour Court has overlooked these documents and fastened the liability of paying the amount of Rs. 4,32,000/- arbitrarily on the employer. It is further submitted that the Labour Court has recorded in paragraph no.18 of the impugned order that the amount of Rs. 4,32,000/- which is found to be payable to the employee includes the amount of gratuity, provident fund and other monetary benefits. It is stated in the petition that the employer has paid an amount of Rs. 24,145/- towards provident fund and an amount of Rs. 55,454/- towards gratuity and these payments are also not taken into account while determining the liability of the petitioner to pay Rs. 4,32,000/-. It is submitted that even if the amount of Rs. 4,32,000/- is to be paid then the amount of Rs. 79,599/- (Rs. 24,145/- + Rs. 55,454/-) is required to be deducted from that amount. It is submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and has to be set aside, holding that the respondents are entitled for an amount of Rs. 2,92,651/- which has been accepted by the petitioner and the amount of Rs. 24,145/- towards provident fund and Rs. 55,454/- towards gratuity i.e. total Rs. 3,72,250/-/.
Shri Jaiswal, the learned advocate for the respondents has submitted that the application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was challenged by the employee who unfortunately died after the filing of the application and it is prosecuted by his widow. It is submitted that all necessary steps have been taken on behalf of the widow of the employee to procure the necessary documents and applications in that regard were filed and orders were also passed by the Labour Court, however, the petitioner/employer did not produce the relevant documents on the record. It is submitted that the calculations made by the employee while filing the application should be treated to be proper and the Labour Court has also found that the respondents are entitled for the amount as calculated by the employee while filing the application and, therefore, the impugned order need not be interfered with. It is further submitted that the employee was entitled for reinstatement and back wages pursuant to the order passed in the Complaint ULP No. 68/1988 on 1st July, 1994, however, the employee was not reinstated and was not paid the back wages and there was no justification for it and, therefore, the respondents are entitled for the interest on the amount which has not been paid when it fell due. It is submitted that the petitioners be directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount receivable by the respondents.
In these cases, I find that the respondents as well as the petitioner/employer have not been vigilant in prosecuting the matter. This Court while deciding the Writ Petition No. 2715/2005 has recorded that the petitioner/employer has accepted its liability to pay Rs. 3,01,617/- to the respondents. The matter was remanded to the Labour Court for deciding the entitlement of the respondents for the balance amount. Even after the remand, the petitioner/employer has not adduced any evidence and has not placed any documents on the record to justify its calculations of Rs. 3,01,617/-. The respondents had filed applications calling upon the petitioner/employer to produce the relevant documents on the record of the Labour Court and the Labour Court has passed the orders directing the petitioner/employer to produce the documents on the record, however, the petitioner/employer has not taken care to place the relevant documents on the record. The Labour Court while passing the impugned order has recorded these facts. The Labour Court is constrained to decide the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act on the basis of the material which has been placed on the record and considering the conduct of the parties. The learned advocate for the petitioner has repeatedly argued that the documents Exh. No. 24, Exh. No. 25 and Exh. No. 27 which are on the record be examined, however, examination of these documents by this Court will not be fruitful. Exhibit No. 27 is the chart of back wages receivable by the employee but this chart cannot show the exact amount for which the employee is entitled. Shri Rajendra Vitthalrao Ramteke -the Personal Officer working with the petitioner has stated in his cross-examination that the relevant documents on the basis of which the calculations of back-wages payable to the employee are to be made, have not been filed on the record. This witness has stated that the amount of increments payable to the employee for the period from 1988 to 1991, is not shown in Exh. No. 27. Similarly, it is stated by this witness that the amount of Rs. 24,145/- which is shown to have been accepted by the employee, its receipt is not available in the service book. Thus, it would not be possible for this Court to examine the documents and decide the disputed questions of facts.
In this situation, I find that there has been default on the part of the respondents as well as the petitioner/employer to prove their contentions. The Labour Court which is the Competent Authority in the matter has arrived at the conclusions after considering the material on the record and the conduct of the parties. The dispute is going on since 1997. This Court has once remanded the matter giving opportunity to the parties to substantiate their claim, however, the parties have not been vigilant in the matter. In my view, it would not be proper to remand the matter again. In these circumstances, the claims of both the parties cannot be considered in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
Shri Jaiswal, the learned advocate for the legal representatives of the employee has submitted that proceedings are going on before the Industrial Court for recovery of unpaid amount towards gratuity and provident fund.
The adjudication of this matter will not affect the claims which are pending.