AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Petitioner-public road transport corporation, aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2012 in application No. 14/2010 of the III Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore, directing payment of Rs. 33,061/- of which Rs. 3,813/- is under the head of balance towards leave encashment benefit and Rs. 29.248/- as difference of salary for the period 1975 to 2001, has presented this petition.
Heard the learned counsel for parties, perused the pleadings and examined the order impugned. There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that at paragraph 4 of the application No. 14/2010 filed by the respondent-workman, admitted the receipt of Rs. 33,061/- during pendency of the contempt proceedings before this Court, while petitioner-Corporation in its statement of objections extracted the amounts due to the respondent which discloses Rs. 33,061/- as the balance which was made over to the respondent-workman under acknowledgment and therefore, the Labour Court having failed to notice the said admission, fell in error in allowing the application and directing payment of Rs. 33,061/-.
The Labour Court, in the order impugned has not adverted to the admission of a fact made by the respondent workman over acknowledgment for receipt of Rs. 33,061/- and if that is taken into account, it is needless to state that the Labour Court failed to apply its mind to the relevant material constituting legal evidence of a fact.
Regard being had to paragraph 25 of the order impugned observing that the respondent workman had placed no material to establish that Rs. 8,715/- was the monthly wage that was required to be fixed pursuant to I.D. No. 98/2004 and in the absence of a challenge to the order dated 27.06.2006 of the petitioner corporation fixing basic pay at Rs. 6,590/-, justifiably the memo of calculation filed by the respondent workman was rejected.
The memo of calculation filed by the petitioner corporation in its statement of objections to application No. 14/2010 more appropriately Annexure-B discloses that Rs. 3,813/- was difference of amount towards leave encashment and Rs. 29.248/- was difference of salary from 1975 to 2001 totalling to Rs. 33,061/-. It is further stated that the said sum was made over to the respondent who acknowledged receipt of the same. In the light of the admission of acknowledgment of receipt of Rs. 33,061/- by the respondent workman, the order of the Labour Court calls for interference.
In the result, petition is allowed. The order of the Labour Court impugned is quashed in so far as it relates to the direction to pay Rs. 33,061/- and in all other respects, remains unaltered. Application No. 14/2010 stands rejected.