AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Narendra Kumar Jain-I, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the appellant. This intra-Court appeal is directed against order of Single Bench dt. 12.05.2009, whereby award of Labour Court Bharatpur Camp at Alwar dt. 07.05.1994, whereby workman/petitioner was reinstated in service with back wages and continuity of service and subsequent order dt. 18.02.1995 rejecting the application of the Management, were set aside and matter was remitted to Labour Court to consider the same and pass fresh award.
The workman/appellant filed his statement of claim before Labour Court, Bharatpur, wherein it was averred that he was appointed as Accounts Clerk on 01.03.1984 on monthly salary of Rs. 400/-. His services were wrongly terminated w.e.f. 03.06.1985 violating the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ''the Act''), therefore, the action of the respondent be set aside and applicant be reinstated with continuity of service and arrears of pay. The matter was contested by the Management.
Learned Labour Court vide its award dt. 07.05.1994 held that termination order of workman dt. 03.06,1985 was not valid and reasonable, therefore, workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service.
The Management, thereafter, filed an application that workman was enrolled as an advocate w.e.f. 14.06.1990 and the said fact was concealed by him, therefore, they may be permitted to lead evidence in this regard for the purpose of awarding back wages. The application was contested by filing a reply that award was passed after hearing both the parties, therefore, application is liable to be dismissed. The Labour Court vide its order dt. 18.06.1995 dismissed the application.
Being aggrieved with the award dt. 7th May, 1994 and order dt. 18th February, 1995, the respondent/employer filed a writ petition before Single Bench, which was partly allowed. The Single Bench set aside the award as well as the order passed by the Labour Court and remitted the matter to Labour Court for considering the fact about enrollment of the workman as an advocate and to pass fresh award. Being aggrieved with the same, the workman has preferred this intra-Court appeal.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the award dt. 07.05.1994, was passed by the Labour Court only after hearing both the parties, considering the evidence led by both the parties. Therefore, the subsequent application filed by the Management was rightly rejected by Labour Court vide order dt. 18.06.1995. Therefore, matter should not have been remitted to the Labour Court. Therefore, the order of Single Bench be set aside.
We have considered the submissions of Learned Counsel for the appellant and examined the impugned order. We have also examined the award dt. 07.05.1994 and the order dt. 18.02.1995 passed by Labour Court.
During course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the appellant fairly and frankly did not dispute that petitioner was enrolled as an advocate in the year 1990. Learned Single Judge has observed that the fact of enrollment of appellant as an advocate may not be relevant for the purpose of reinstatement, but certainly it is relevant for the purpose of awarding the back wages. We find that the reason assigned by Single Bench for remitting the matter back, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is absolutely legal and justified. When this fact is not disputed that appellant had already enrolled as an advocate in the year 1990 then he could not have been reinstated in the year 1994 when the award was passed. No back wages could have been awarded for the period from the date of enrollment till the date of passing of the award. In these circumstances, we find that learned Single Judge was absolutely right in remitting the matter to the Labour Court for passing fresh award. In view of above, we do not find any force in this intra-Court appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed in limine. Stay Application No. 2938/2011 is also dismissed.