AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 31.07.2007 impugned at Annexure-D to the petition. By the said order, the Deputy Labour Commissioner has directed that a sum of Rs. 19,37,001/- be recovered as arrears of land revenue, if the said amount is not deposited.
The Union representing the workmen who had raised a dispute in AID No. 10/1974, based on the award dated 27.02.1976 filed an application under Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (''I.D. Act'' for short) with the Labour Commissioner, Belgaum District seeking payment of the amount in terms of the award. At the first instance, the Deputy Labour Commissioner had issued Recovery Certificate dated 08.04.2004. The petitioner herein claiming to be aggrieved by the same was before this Court in W.P. No. 10601/2006. In the said petition, it was contended that all the 32 workmen were not entitled to payment of the amount. In that regard, a contention had also been put forth that the workmen whose details were indicated at the respective serial numbers as respondents had been granted the benefit as they were employed on a permanent basis in different positions and that aspect of the matter had not been considered by the Deputy Labour Commissioner. This Court by the order dated 09.01.2007, on taking note of the said contention had quashed the order dated 08.04.2004 and remitted the matter to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, with a direction to consider the objections filed by the petitioner and also the claim of respective workmen and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the present impugned order dated 31.07.2007 has been passed.
The contention raised in the instant writ petition and the contention put forth by the learned Government Advocate is infact the very same contention which had been urged in the earlier petition in W.P. No. 10601/2006. In that light, the learned Government Advocate would contend that despite this Court quashing the earlier order and the matter being remanded to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the Deputy Labour Commissioner has not taken into consideration the said objection of the Government to come to the conclusion as to whether the claim as made based on the award passed in AID No. 10/1974 dated 27.02.1976 would enure to the benefit of all the 32 workmen. In that regard, it is contended that the persons whose serial numbers were mentioned as the respondents had been employed as watchman, cleaners, work inspectors and literate assistants and therefore the benefit upto the year 1999 cannot be claimed by them. The contention therefore is that even if the benefits are worked out from the point when the dispute had been raised in the year 1974, the same should cease at a point when the said respondents were employed in different capacities and this aspect ought to have been considered by the Deputy Labour Commissioner.
Learned counsel for the respondents would however point out that except for raising such contention in the writ petition, the petitioners have not produced any material before the Deputy Labour Commissioner after the remand. In that regard, reference is made to the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 31.07.2007 wherein the Deputy Labour Commissioner has observed that since no documents have been produced subsequently, he is constrained to pass a similar order once over again.
In the light of the contentions, a perusal of the order dated 09.01.2007 passed in W.P. No. 10601/2006 would disclose the nature of the contention that had been put forth on behalf of the petitioner at the earlier instance. Therefore, the Deputy Labour Commissioner no doubt was required to make a consideration as to whether all the 32 workmen were entitled to the benefit of the amount or the quantum thereto based on the award dated 27.02.1976 passed in AID No. 10/1974. If that be the position, the question for consideration is as to whether the petitioners had infact furnished such materials to the Deputy Labour Commissioner to arrive at a conclusion after the remand was made from this Court. A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition presently would no doubt indicate that the grounds raised are similar to the grounds that had been urged in W.P. No. 10601/2006 wherein the remand had been made to the Deputy Labour Commissioner for reconsideration.
However, except raising the contention there is no material whatsoever produced along with the writ petition to indicate that after the remand, the said materials had been produced before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, but the same had not been considered by him before passing an order. In that light, if the order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner dated 31.07.2007 impugned herein is perused, after taking note of the contention as put forth by the petitioners herein, he has observed that on remand, no material whatsoever has been produced to accept the contention as put forth by the petitioner. Hence, he has indicated that he is constrained to pass a very similar order that had been passed on 08.04.2004. Therefore, such conclusion reached by the Deputy Labour Commissioner would have to be accepted by this Court in the absence of the materials produced by the petitioners along with the writ petition to indicate that the materials as tendered before the Authority had not been considered by the Authority.
One other aspect of the matter is also that some of the employees who had claimed a similar benefit and had raised a further dispute in AID No. 2/1979 had claimed similar implementation/recovery proceedings before the Deputy Labour Commissioner. Since the Deputy Labour Commissioner had passed an order in their favour, the petitioner therein was before this Court in W.P. No. 67013/2011 and connected petitions and also said issue had arisen for consideration in W.A. No. 1825/2007. This Court while disposing of the said petition had in fact upheld the order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner directing payment of the amount as determined.
Therefore, taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, the order dated 31.07.2007 impugned herein does not call for interference. However, what is also to be kept in view is that the Deputy Labour Commissioner has quantified the amount payable at Rs. 19,37,001/-. The petitioners contend that all the 32 workmen are not entitled to the benefit under the award upto the year 1999 since the position in respect of the persons as indicated by them has altered since they have been provided alternate employment and therefore the benefit under the award would cease as against them from the date on which they were granted the alternate benefit. As already noticed, no material had been produced before the Deputy Labour Commissioner in this regard.
However, what cannot be lost sight is that if infact any of the respondents have derived any alternate benefit, they cannot get double benefits at the cost of the State Exchequer and at the same time, merely because the petitioner has put forth such contention, such of those workmen who have not been granted the benefit at all cannot be denied the same.
Therefore, appropriate course to ensure the said aspect is to direct the petitioner to deposit the amount with the Deputy Labour Commissioner as ordered by him in the order dated 31.07.2007. The details of such of those respondents, supported by documents, to indicate that such respondents are not entitled to the benefits for the reasons stated shall also be furnished along with the amount. The Deputy Labour Commissioner on receipt of the deposit and such documents submitted by the petitioner shall take steps to disburse the amount insofar as the workmen who have not derived benefit at all and examine the documents submitted by the petitioner to come to a conclusion as to whether such of those respondents mentioned by the petitioner are not entitled to any benefit or are entitled to a lesser benefit. On reaching such conclusion, if there is any excess amount, the same shall thereafter be refunded by the Deputy Labour Commissioner.
The amount shall be deposited within a period of two months.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.