AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Grievance of the petitioner Corporation is common in all these writ petitions and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
Heard Shri P. B. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation and Shri F. I. Khan, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the impugned orders and the documents placed on record.
It is seen that the applications which were filed under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by each of the respondents sought for a direction from the learned Labour Court to the petitionerCorporation to pay to the respondents the wages for the interregnum period. Those applications came to be allowed by the learned Labour Court by the impugned orders. The learned Labour Court has directed the amount of wages to carry interest @ 7% per annum.
On going through the impugned orders, I find that the discretion exercised by the learned Labour Court is based on sound reasoning emanating from the law settled by the Hon''ble Apex Court. The learned Labour Court has also considered the fact that each of the respondents has approached the petitioner with a request to take them in employment, but the same was not accepted by the petitioner and, therefore, it could not be said that the respondents should not be paid any wages by applying the principle of ?no work, no pay? and rightly so. The Labour Court has also considered the fact that the Divisional Controller has also issued a circular accepting the demand of the respondents. The Labour Court has granted interest on the arrears @ 7% per annum. The interest is awarded from the date of impugned order till realization. The order seems to be just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The writ petitions, in the circumstances of the case, deserve to dismissed and are dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged in all these petitions. No costs. Respondents are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner in this Court.