Muthoot M George Bankers vs Presiding Officer

Mohammed Nias.C.P., J.

The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition that was filed challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the Labour Court, Kollam under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the 'Act').

The short facts leading to this writ appeal are as under:-

The appellant, a partnership firm engaged in the business of taking deposits from the public and lending to the public, had stopped their business on 10.2.2004 being unable to receive deposit from public or carry on their business with the incorporation of Section 45-S in the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, which prohibited such business. The second respondent was a Workman employed in the services of the appellant as an Office Assistant, who was dismissed from service by order dated 21.2.1994 on the allegation of misconduct. An industrial dispute was raised by the second respondent's Union which culminated in Ext.P1 award as confirmed and modified by Ext.P2 judgment of this Court as also in writ appeals directing reinstatement of the second respondent with 50% back-wages. Ext.P3 claim petition was filed by the second respondent before the Labour Court, Kollam, claiming back-wages and wages payable to him as a consequence of reinstatement in terms of Ext.P1 award as modified by Ext.P2 judgment for the period from 10.6.1993 to 21.12.2005 at 50% of the wages and from 22.12.2005 till

31.05.2013 at the rate of full wages. The appellant contested the same disputing the claims made by the second respondent. The Labour Court, Kollam, allowed Ext.P3 claim petition in its entirety by Ext.P7 order, which was challenged in the writ petition.

The main contentions raised before the learned single Judge was that the petitioner's establishment was closed with effect from 10.2.2004, and therefore the finding of the Labour Court to pay back-wages and wages to the second respondent from 10.6.1993 is not sustainable in law. The learned single Judge repelled the said contention on the ground that no such argument was made before the award was passed by the Labour Court nor before this Court in the writ petitions challenging Ext.P1 award or in the writ appeals and therefore such a contention could not be raised in a proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Act. The second contention raised with regard to the calculation of the benefits to the petitioner was also not accepted in full but, a slight modification was made finding that the award was published under Section 17 of the Act only on 12.4.2006, and resultanty the award became enforceable on 12.5.2006 in terms of Section 17A of the Act and therefore the second respondent is entitled to full wages as the consequence of the reinstatement only from 12.5.2006 and not from 21.12.2005, thereby a causing a reduction of Rs.6832/-from the wages paid. A further contention was also raised by the appellant that the second respondent was not a Clerk but only an Office Assistant. This also was rejected on the short ground that no such contention was raised before the Labour Court while passing the order and that as a matter of fact, there is a specific finding in the award that the worker involved in the dispute was employed as a Clerk and the said fact was not disputed by the petitioner before the Labour Court. Thus, Ext.P7 order was confirmed with the slight modification as indicated above.

In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.B.Ashok Shenoy submits that the judgment of the learned single Judge is wrong in as much it did not take into account the closure of the establishment and also did not accept his contention that the second respondent was only an Office Assistant and that the calculation of the amounts were also wrong.

Having heard the learned counsel on either side and perusing the records, we are not in a position to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant as all the contentions which were sought to the raised in the writ petition stood covered against him by Ext.P1 award as modified by Ext.P2 judgment of this Court. As rightly held by the learned single Judge that the Labour Court considering a claim petition under Section 33C(2) of the Act cannot go behind the award. The said proceedings are more in the nature of execution of the award passed, which became enforceable, the moment the award became final. It is worthwhile to note the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and another [(2022) 5 SCC 629] which again reiterated that in an application under Section 33C(2), the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute or entitlement or basis of claim of workman and can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based.

We are also in complete agreement with the modification made to Ext.P7 by the learned single Judge and declaring that the second respondent is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,69,319/- being 50% to back-wages from 10.6.1993 to 11.5.2006 and Rs.2,58,732/- being the full wages from 12.5.2006 till 31.5.2013, thus totalling to Rs.4,28,051/- recoverable from as such jointly and severally from the opposite parties in the claim petition with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the same amount from the date of petition till realisation or payment of the amount.

We find that the Workman in the instant instant case had to fight several rounds litigation and even now he has not got the orders in his favour executed. Since the workman was put to untold hardship and incalculable loss on account of the acts of the management, we deem it appropriate to impose costs of an amount of Rs.25,000/-, which will be payable to the workman over and above the amounts ordered to be paid by the learned single Judge in the judgment under appeal.

The writ appeal is dismissed with the above directions.