AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—1. The petitioner is assailing the order dated 19.02.2015 passed in Application No. 20/2007 impugned at Annexure-J to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the amount as per the calculation statement submitted by the Court Commissioner/Chartered Accountant as at Annexure-H to the petition. He is also seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the total amount due with interest.
Heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and perused the petition papers.
The petitioner was at the first instance before this Court in W.P. No. 22089/1999 which was disposed of on 17.02.2005. In view of the directions issued in the said petition, the petitioner was to be extended the voluntary retirement scheme benefits since such order had been passed in modification of the Labour Court award. In view of such directions, the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The claim as put forth by the petitioner had not been accepted at the first instance and therefore the petitioner having approached this Court in W.P. No. 557/2011 had assailed the order dated 18.11.2010 passed in Application No. 20/2007. This Court by the order dated 15.07.2011 had set aside the order impugned therein and remitted the matter to the 1st Additional Labour Court to provide opportunity to the parties and thereafter pass fresh orders in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order dated 19.02.2015 is passed by the 1st Additional Labour Court whereby the application filed by the petitioner is dismissed. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court.
The respondents have filed their objection statement seeking to sustain their action. Essentially the contentions urged is in similar lines as has been contended before the Labour Court and which has been accepted by the Labour Court while rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
In that light, a perusal of the order passed by the Labour Court would disclose that two aspects of the matter which had arisen for consideration has been taken note and thereafter the orders have been passed. Insofar as the applicability of the appropriate voluntary retirement scheme to the petitioner, it has arrived at the conclusion that the scheme which had been introduced by respondent No. 1 in the year 1999-2000 would be applicable. Insofar as the revision of wages that had been claimed by the petitioner, the Labour Court has taken into consideration the calculation as had been made by the State Accounts Department viz., the second respondent herein and in that light has arrived at the conclusion that the revision would not be applicable.
Therefore, when said two aspects of the matter would arise for consideration and in that light when the petitioner was before this Court at an earlier instance, the primary contention that had been put forth by the parties relating to the applicability of the scheme had arisen for consideration therein. While remanding, the learned Single Judge of this Court had adverted to such contentions and on answering the same had remitted the matter to the Labour Court to consider in that light. A perusal of the order dated 15.07.2011 passed in W.P. No. 557/2011 (Annexure-G) would disclose that the issue relating to the applicability of the appropriate scheme to the case of the petitioner had arisen for consideration and the rival contentions put forth in that regard had been adverted to in the said petition.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 would vehemently contend that even if that be so, this Court had not directed that the scheme of the year 2013 should be applied to the case of the petitioner. In order to appreciate the contentions, a perusal of the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge in para 6 of the order would disclose that the contention relating to the same was taken into consideration in the light of the direction that had been issued in the order dated 17.02.2005 passed in W.P. No. 22089/1999. Having taken note of the same, a categorical finding has been recorded by this Court that there is no such specific direction in the order dated 17.02.2005 passed in W.P. No. 22089/1999 that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered under the scheme of the year 1999-2000.
In that light, it was further held that the voluntary retirement scheme of the year 2003 was in force as on the date when this Court had modified the award of the Labour Court on 06.04.2006. In that view, this Court was of the opinion that the benefits extended under the voluntary retirement scheme of the year 1999-2000 is illegal. If such finding as recorded is taken into consideration, certainly the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the scheme of the year 2003 would not be applicable as there was no specific direction in the said order cannot be accepted. The said observation as referred to would make things more than clear to indicate that the scheme of the year 2003 was to be kept in view, applied to the case of the petitioner and in that light, the benefits payable under the scheme was to be taken into consideration in the case of the petitioner while determining the amount payable.
If that aspect of the matter is kept in view, the Labour Court has exceeded the jurisdiction in recording a finding once over again to come to the conclusion that the calculation as made under the scheme of the year 1999-2000 would be applicable. Such conclusion reached by the Labour Court if allowed to remain in force would amount to re-writing the order of this Court which had been passed while remitting the matter to the Labour Court. Therefore, on that aspect of the matter, it is to be clarified that the voluntary retirement scheme of the year 2003 shall be taken into consideration and the benefits provided under the scheme shall be made applicable to the case of the petitioner for the purpose of calculation of the benefits payable.
Insofar as the revision of wages, though the statement as submitted by the petitioner through the Chartered Accountant would not be a material document to be taken into consideration, the Labour Court was also not justified in accepting the calculation as made by the State Accounts Department merely because it is a statutory body and the calculation has been made by it. The evidence tendered and available on record ought to have been taken into consideration and in the light ought to have found out as to whether revision of wages would be applicable to the case of the petitioner by recording an independent finding and should have thereafter taken into consideration the scheme of 2003 and the amount should have been calculated to find out as to whether the amount already disbursed would satisfy the claim.
Therefore, for the said reasons, the order dated 19.02.2015 would not be sustainable. The same is accordingly set aside. The Application No. 20/2007 is restored to the file of the 1st Additional Labour Court with a direction that the voluntary retirement scheme of the year 2003 shall be accepted as applicable to the case of the petitioner and in that light, examine the evidence available on record to calculate the benefits that would be available under the scheme to the petitioner. Prior to doing the same, the question with regard to revision of wages shall be independently considered and a decision shall be taken based on the evidence available and record an independent finding on that aspect.
In order to enable the proceedings to be concluded in an expeditiously manner, the parties shall appear before the 1st Additional Labour court without issue of fresh notice on 15.02.2016 as the first date of appearance. The Labour Court shall take up the case out of turn since the application was filed as far back as in the year 2007 and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four months from the date of first appearance. Further if any evidence becomes necessary to be recorded in the case and the parties make request before the Labour Court, the Labour Court shall allow such evidence to be tendered within a time frame to be fixed by the Court and if that opportunity is not availed, adverse inference shall be drawn.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.