AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy
Though these petitions are listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this order.
These writ petitions are filed by the workman and the employer-Road Transport Corporation, calling in question the very same award dated 31.3.2011, in Reference No. 20/2007, of the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. White the workman is aggrieved by the award denying four annual increments with cumulative (sic) from the year 2004 and 50% back wages from 07.04.3004, the Road Transport Corporation, on the either hand, is aggrieved by the award insofar as it relates to a finding that the order of dismissal is non-est, in the light of the decision of this Apex Court in Jaipur Zila Saha kari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others reported in 2002 I ILJ
Undoubtedly, the petitioner is a workman concerned to. I.D. No. 148/2005 pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, for adjudication, over the charter of demands submitted by the Trade Union and therefore, incumbent on the part of the employer-Road Transport Corporation to have obtained permission of the Industrial Tribunal u/s 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before terminating the services of the workmen and having not done so, the labour Court, in my considered opinion, was fully justified in allowing the reference and setting aside the order dated 13.9.2006 dismissing the workman from service of the Road Transport Corporation, following the decision of the Apex Court noticed supra.
The labour Court having allowed the reference, nevertheless, fell in error in modifying the order by imposing a lesser punishment denying the workman four annual increments with cumulative effect from the year 2004 and 50% backwages from 07.04.2004, hence calls for interference.
Sri L. Shekar, learned counsel for the workman submits that the workman is willing to give up the claim for 50% of the back wages, in other words, he is willing to get back to duties without back wages.
In the result, W.P. No. 44998/2011 filed by the workman is allowed and the award impugned is modified entitling the workman to reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits, however, without bank wages.
W.P. No. 33223/2011 filed by the Road Transport Corporation is rejected.