AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy
Petitioner, a Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, for short The KCS Act'', aggrieved by order dt. 5/3/2011 in Application No. 2/2009 of the Labour Court, D.K., Mangalore, determining Rs. 1,95,442/- in a proceeding under Sec.33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short. ID Act'', and directing payment of the same with interest at 12% p.a. to the respondents, being the legal representatives of deceased Smt. Shakunthala Rai, has presented this petition.
Indisputably the deceased Shakunthala Rai, while working as a clerk on daily wages in the petitioner-Society, when allegedly terminated on 22/1/1986 initiated conciliation proceeding ending in a failure report. The State government by order dt. 5/6/1987 referred the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Mangalore, whence it was registered as ID (LCM) No. 139/87. Parties having entered appearance, filed their statement, let in evidence, culminating in an award dt. 9/5/1995 directing reinstatement with full backwages and other attendant benefits, including maternity benefit. Petitioner questioned the award in W.P.39355/95, whence a learned Single Judge by order dt. 5/2/1999 dismissed the petition, following which petitioner preferred W.A.No.2654/99. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner by letter dt. 5/7/1999 - Annex. E called upon Shakunthala Rai to report to duty, on reinstatement on contract basis for 29 days at Rs. 50/- per working day. That Shakunthala Rai is said to have reported to duty only on the forenoon of 8/8/2002 by letter Annex. F. The Division Bench by order dt. 28/8/2002 - Annex. D having noticed that the workman was reinstated on 8/8/2002 and recording the agreement of petitioner to pay 50% backwages from the date of termination i.e., 22/8/1986 up to the date of actual reinstatement i.e., 8/8/2002, accordingly affirmed the award of the Labour Court.
It appears that the said Shakunthala Rai reportedly died on 31/3/2004, whereafterwards, her legal representatives sought payment of the amounts due under the award by notice dt. 16/2/2009 issued through legal counsel, which when not responded, led to filing of the application before the Labour Court claiming Rs. 1,08,771/- after deducting Rs. 64,771/- since paid, from out of Rs. 1,73,542/-. That application was opposed by filing statement of objections interalia contending that Shakunthala Rai was reinstated as a temporary employee on daily wages, since at the time of termination of service, was a temporary employee on daily wages, in addition to the contention that the court did not have jurisdiction. The Labour Court having regard to the material on record, rejected the plea of jurisdiction and accepted the memo of calculation putforth by respondents to direct payment of Rs. 1,95,442/- which included bonus, medical claim and 3 months maternity benefit.
The 1st contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application, is without merit. In Dharappa Vs. Bijapur Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd., , the Apex court held that the jurisdiction to decide any dispute of the nature mentioned in Sec. 70(2)(d) of the KCS Act was concurrently with the Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals between 20/1/1976 to 20/6/2000. In that view of the matter, the award dt. 9/5/1995 of the Labour Court in ID (LCM) No. 139/87 was well within the aforesaid period and therefore the Labour Court had the jurisdiction. It is needless to state that the execution of the award, in the ordinary course, in law, ought to be either on an application under Sec.33-C(1) or 33-C(2) of the ID Act and therefore the application filed by the legal representatives of Shakunthala Rai, under Sec.33-C(2), was maintainable.
There is force in the 2nd contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Labour Court having not noticed that reinstatement of the worker Shakunthala Rai was only as daily wager, since at the time of termination she was a daily wager and that the deceased was not appointed in a regular recruitment process under the Recruitment Rules of the petitioner, the calculation of backwages based upon a fixed scale of pay, did not arise. The Labour Court having proceeded on an erroneous interpretation that a daily wager is entitled to wages as per the pay scale, calculated the backwages of Rs. 1,08,771/- which is unsustainable. So also the Labour Court erred in concluding that a daily, wager was entitled to bonus at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per year for 16 years and medical claim of Rs. 500/- per year, totalling to Rs. 8,000/- for 16 years, as also 3 months maternity benefit at Rs. 3,000/- per month, totalling to Rs. 9,000/- and in all Rs. 1,95,442/- together with interest at 12% per annum. In the absence of clear reasons and findings, the conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court over the benefits in terms of money, in my opinion, cannot be sustained.
In the result, this writ petition is allowed in part. The order impugned is quashed and the proceeding remitted for consideration afresh over the calculation of 50% backwages from 22/8/1986 up to 8/8/2002 and monetary benefits to a daily wager, after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and to pass an order in accordance with law. All contentions are kept open, except one of jurisdiction.
Parties since represented by learned Counsel, are directed to be present before the Labour Court, D.K. Mangalore, on 12/1/2012.
The amount in deposit in this petition is directed to be released to the petitioner.
I.A.2/11 is dismissed as unnecessary.