THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NORTH-WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BAGALKOT DIVISION Vs. BHOJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-North-West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation'), is aggrieved by the order dated 19-7-2014 passed by the Labour Court, Bijapur, whereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioner-Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 3,21,484/- to the applicant within three months from the date of passing of the order, after making compulsory deductions. In default, the Corporation was also directed to pay the said amount with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the application till the date of realisation.

(2.) In short, the case of the petitioner is that in 1997 the respondent-workman was appointed as Conductor in the petitioner-Corporation. Due to certain alleged pilferage committed by the respondent, he was dismissed from the service. Since the respondent was aggrieved by the dismissal order, he raised a labour dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Bijapur. After going through the entire evidence, by award dated 6-9-2011, the learned Labour Court directed the Corporation to reinstate the respondent with full back wages, with continuity of service, and all other consequential benefits. Since the Corporation was aggrieved by the said order, it filed a writ petition, namely Writ Petition No. 81760 of 2012 before the Kalaburagi Bench of this Court. By judgment dated 19-6-2013, this Court modified the award and directed the Corporation to reinstate the respondent into service without back wages, and other consequential benefits. Since the Corporation did not implement either the award or the order passed by this Court, the respondent filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') before the Labour Court, Bijapur, and sought payment of Rs. 3,26,484/- along with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of the award till the date of realisation. By the impugned order dated 19-7-2014, the said application has been partly allowed. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions before this Court: