MSA (India) Limited & Anr. vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Choudhury, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, impugned order could not have been made when award of industrial

tribunal became binding upon his clients and the workman. In award dated 26th May, 2015, inter alia, following was found and held :-

 “As the applicant refrained himself from joining F-2 Battery Section on the medical ground which was later on considered, so, the opposite party

cannot but to pay the legal dues of the said period. So, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to get his legal dues on and from the date of

transfer from F-2 Battery Assembly Section till the date to the security department upto 16.04.2000 @ of his last drawn salary per month. Issue

No. 2 is disposed of in favour of the applicant in part. In the result, the applicant succeeds in part.

Hence.

O R D E R E D

That the case as referred view Order No. 1676-IR/IR/llL-132/96, dated 05.09.2001 is disposed of on contest passing the order that the transfer of Sri

Kailash Biswal w.e.f. 17.04.2000 from Cab-lamp department to security department is justified and the applicant workman is entitled to get his legal

dues since June, 1999 to 16.04.2000 @ of his last drawn salary per month to be paid by the opposite party within a month since the date of publication

of this award.â€​

By impugned order, inter alia, following was held and ordered :-

“The Learned First Labour Court in its award dated 26.05.2015 has declared that the applicant is entitled to legal dues. Legal dues would most

definitely include wages as well. Thus, it has been adjudicated in the Case no. VIII- 187 of 2001 that the applicant is entitled to the wages for the

period which is also the claim period of

the present case. However, in Case no. VIII-187 of 2001 no compensation for the non-payment of the wages has been awarded. Section 15(3) of

the Payment of Wages Act makes provision for compensation. Thus, it cannot be said that the entire relief of the applicant has been exhausted

through the award.

In such circumstance, I find no reason to allow the prayer of the O.P.

Hence, it is

ORDERED

the instant application dated 06.01.2017 filed by the O.P. is rejected on contest without costs.â€​

Mr. Choudhury submits on query from Court, application under sub-section (2) of section 15 in Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was made by the

workman. It is on this application impugned order was passed. He goes on to rely on judgment of Supreme Court in Bombay Gas Co. vs. Shridhar

Bhau Parab reported in AIR 1961 SC 1196, to extract from paragraph 7 :-

“7……….In effect therefore the decision of the tribunal was that these workmen were not covered by the Factories Act and were only entitled

to a certain concession which is granted them. That award is still in force as it has not been terminated under S. 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes

Act. So long therefore as that award remains in force it must be held that these workmen, including the respondent, are not governed by the Factories

Act and are not entitled to the benefits thereof and can only claim what the tribunal awarded them in 1953. It can not be disputed that the tribunal

had the jurisdiction to decide the question referred to it and though in the present case its decision that these workmen were not governed by the

Factories Act was based on a concession it could have come to the same decision even without the concession. In these circumstances so long as the

award of 1953 remains in force we cannot see how these workmen can go to the Authority and say that part of their overtime wages has been

delayed or deducted when they have all along been paid in accordance with the award of 1953, which in effect is the contract governing the matter.. ..

…â€​

 In Bombay Gas CO. (supra) there was a finding by Tribunal that the workmen were not covered by Factories Act and, therefore, not entitled

to benefit thereunder. In this case it has been found that workman was entitled to be paid for the period he was absent onÂ

medical grounds.

Company has made the payment as submitted but resistance is to the order for payment of compensation. Mr. Choudhury will be heard further.

List on 24th July, 2018.