R. GANGABYRAIAH Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 14th September 2006 in Application No. 9/2006 on the file of Principal Labour Court, Bangalore. Petitioner had filed an application under Section 33C clause (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for brevity 'the Act') interalia claiming that, he had worked for the respondent - establishment from 24.12.1988 to 8.3.2005. He retired by taking voluntary retirement. However, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 23.12.1987 and by virtue of the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 195/1988, he was reinstated into service with 25% of backwages, however, the said order was called in question before this Court in W.P. No. 8588/2001. This Court by order dated 18th June 2001, though confirmed the order of reinstatement, but denied the backwages on the ground that, the petitioner was gainfully employed.

(2.) The Labour Court has rejected the claim petition under Section 33C clause (2) of the Act on the ground that, the award passed by the Labour Court reinstating the petitioner has net directed for grant of consequential benefits, as such, petitioner is not entitled for consequential benefits. It is against the said order, petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, if there is an award for reinstatement, it presupposes the continuity of service as well as for consequential benefits. He also submitted that, the fact that 25% back-wages is granted which, though denied on account of gainful employment of the petitioner, the petitioner became entitled for all consequential benefits. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by this Court. To support his contention, he relied on the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 5642/2010 dated 9th December 2010 and the decision of the Apex Court in SAIN STEEL PRODUCTS V/S NAIPAL SINGH, 2001 LabIC 2372 in the matter of Sain Steel Products -vs- Naipal Singh and others and, 2002 92 FLR 838 in the matter of Gurpreet Singh -vs- State of Punjab and others and submitted that, the reinstatement means, back into service from the date on which he was dismissed and it deemed to have been continued in ser vice from the date on which he joined the service till retirement This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Labour Court.