M/s. Ceeta Industries Limited vs G. Lingaraju

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Respondent filed a claim application under S. 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" for short) in the Labour Court at Bangalore against the petitioner which came to be registered as I.D. No. 54/2008. The petitioner having remained unrepresented, Labour Court passed an ex parte award on 12.9.2008 and directed the reinstatement of the workman with 50% backwages and ordered extension of consequential benefits. Petitioner questioned the said award in W.P. 2185/2009. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after perusal of the writ papers, writ petition was allowed on 12.1.2011 and the case was remanded to the Labour Court for fresh disposal after providing the opportunity to both the parties, subject to the petitioner paying interim wages under S. 17B of the Act, from the date of writ petition till the date of termination of proceedings before the Labour Court. The said order having not been questioned by either of the parties has attained finality. This writ petition has been filed to declare the proceedings in I.D. No. 54/2008 pending before the Labour Court as illegal and without jurisdiction and direct the Labour Court to reject the dispute on the ground that the provisions of the Act are not attracted.

Sri B.R. Satenahalli, learned counsel for the petitioners contended as follows:

(i) The provisions of the Act cannot be applied to the petitioner, since as on date only 6 persons are working as skeleton staff, the petitioner being a sick company, has almost closed its industrial activities.

(ii) S. 17B of the Act is not attracted, inasmuch as, the intent of the provision is to provide relief to the employee only during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court, wherein reinstatement of the employee is in question and cannot be directed to be extended in a matter remanded to the Labour Court.

(iii) The order directing payment of 17-B wages suffers from legal infirmities, since the award dated 12.9.2008 passed by the Labour Court was quashed and the matter having been remanded, the direction issued to the petitioner to pay interim wages under S. 17B of the Act has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

Perused the writ record. Finding the award passed by the Labour Court on 12.9.2008 against the petitioner to be an ex parte award and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, in W.P. 2185/2009, opined that the petitioner is entitled to one more opportunity and as a result, quashed the said award and remanded the case for fresh disposal by the Labour Court. Noticing that, on account of laches on the part of the petitioner, the workman having been put to hardship and inconvenience and he being required to be compensated, the petitioner was directed to pay interim wages to the respondent as appropriate compensation to mitigate the hardship and inconvenience caused to the workman. As a consequence, the Labour Court was directed to decide the matter afresh subject to the petitioner paying interim wages under S. 17B of the Act from the date of petition till the date of termination of proceedings before the Labour Court. The said order, indisputably, has not been questioned. Since the said order has attained finality, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the direction issued to pay 17-B wages is erroneous and has resulted in miscarriage of justice. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 12.9.2008 passed in W.P. 2185/2009 directing payment of 17-B wages to the workman, ought to have questioned the same order in writ appeal. Having not done so, it is not open to the petitioner to question the said order in this writ petition.

The other contention urged that as of now only 6 persons are working as clerical staff in the petitioner company, which is a sick company and it has almost closed its industrial activities, is a fact to be established by adducing evidence before the Labour Court, since the case has been remanded to the Labour Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after providing opportunity to both the parties. Since there is order of remand of the case to the Labour Court, the contention that the provisions of the Act has no application to the petitioner and the provisions of the Act cannot be applied to the petitioner, having not been urged for consideration in W.P. 2185/2009, the principles of constructive res judicata are attracted. Even otherwise, the matter having been remanded for consideration in accordance with law, it is open to the petitioner to raise lawful contentions before the Labour Court, wherein the matter is still pending.

In view of the above, I do not find any justification to entertain this writ petition. Petition is rejected.