North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Bellary Division vs J. Krishtachar and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 29/01/2007 passed in Application No. 25/2000.

The respondent herein who had been dismissed from service with effect from 28/12/1984 had questioned the same in Reference No. 64/1986. The order of dismissal had been set aside by the labour Court through the award dated 14/06/1993. When the same had been assailed by the Management in Writ Petition No. 18826/1994, the back wages, however, was reduced to 50%. Ultimately in the appeal which was filed by the Management in Writ Appeal No. 4175/1999, disposed of on 09/11/2000, the payment of further 10% in addition to what has already been paid was directed. The petitioner is said to have paid the said amount of 10% when the application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(the "ID Act" for short) was pending. Hence, the petitioner contends that no further amount is due to be paid to the respondents.

The labour Court while considering the application filed by the respondent under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act has apart from quantifying the back wages of 10% at Rs. 17,304/- has also directed payment of bonus, and salary from the earned leave and the provident fund contribution deducted from the wages payable to the respondent. It is in that view, the petitioner is before this Court claiming to be aggrieved by the order since according to them, the said amounts are not payable.

Insofar as deduction of provident fund from the wages payable to the respondent, on such deduction, the same would be paid to the trust along with the contribution of petitioner. Hence, any benefits there under would be payable to the respondents from the Trust and refund of deduction would not arise. Insofar as the earned leave, the labour court without reference to the rules of the petitioner-corporation relating to the same, has taken note of the same as 8 months and directed payment of salary for 8 months. Such direction is not sustainable since only such of those heads which is permissible under the rules is to be granted. Further with regard to the bonus also, without reference to the manner in which the bonus would be payable, the amount has been quantified. Therefore, insofar as the said aspects, the labour court was not justified in quantifying the amount without reference to the rules and the manner in which the amount of provident fund which was deducted has been accounted. Hence, these aspects of the matter requires reconsideration by the labour court on securing the petitioner herein to produce the rules in that regard and thereafter come to a conclusion on that aspect. Insofar as the remaining back wages of 10% since it is contended by the petitioner that it has been paid during the pendency of application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, all the details relating to the same shall be furnished to the labour court and the labour court shall thereafter pass orders in that regard. To enable the same, the order dated 29/10/2007 impugned herein is set aside.

The matter is remitted to the labour court to restore the application 25/2000. The parties and their learned counsel shall appear before the labour court without issuance of fresh notice, on 04/03/2015 as the first date of hearing. The labour court shall thereafter regulate the proceedings and dispose of the matter in an expeditious manner.

Petition is accordingly disposed of.