YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION Vs. SHIVASHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-workman had filed a petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'I.D. Act'), before the 1st Additional Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D. No. 95 of 2001 for setting aside the order passed by the petitioner dated 31-3-2001 dismissing him from service. The Labour Court by its order dated 28-9-2004 at Annexure-B allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits. The contention of the petitioner is that it had issued a notice to the respondent as per Annexure-B1, dated 30-9-2004 calling upon him to join the duty and that the respondent did not comply with the demand made therein. In the meanwhile, respondent filed an Application No. 18 of 2007 under Section 33-C(1) and 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for payment of arrears of salary from the date of dismissal i.e., from 31-3-2001 till 6-10-2008, which was allowed on 6-10-2008. The petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Case No. 3 of 2009 to set aside the said order passed in Application No. 18 of 2007. Initially, interim order was passed in the said case. Subsequently, the Labour Court vacated the said order. That is why the petitioner has approached this Court by filing these writ petitions.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Miscellaneous case filed by the petitioner in Misc. No. 3 of 2009 for setting aside the order in Application No. 18 of 2007, dated 18-12-2009 has been allowed by the Labour Court. On 26-4-2011, the Labour Court has dismissed the application filed by the respondent herein filed under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act in Application No. 18 of 2007, dated 29-2-2012. He has produced a copy of the order in Misc. No. 3 of 2009, dated 26-4-2011 and the order in Application No. 18 of 2007, dated 29-2-2012. In view of the aforesaid orders, question of enforcement of the order dated 18-12-2009 in Application No. 18 of 2007 does not arise. Admittedly, respondent has joined the duty with the petitioner in terms of the interim order passed in this case dated 20-1-2010. The petitioner has also paid the back wages in terms of the said order from 31-1-2001 till 30-9-2004. Under these circumstances, it is unnecessary to continue with these writ petitions. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. Needless to say that having regard to the order passed in Application No. 18 of 2007, dated 29-2-2012 by the Labour Court, the respondent herein cannot continue with the execution case or any other proceedings pursuant to the order of the Labour Court dated 18-12-2009 in the said case. No costs.