LAWS(KAR)-2015-11-183

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC BIJAPUR Vs. BALACHANDA

Decided On November 27, 2015
The Divisional Controller, Nwkrtc Bijapur Appellant
V/S
Balachanda Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 29.09.2007 passed in Application No. 46/2002 impugned at Annexure -D to the petition.

(2.) THE petitioner -management had dismissed the respondent from service with effect from 12.02.1992. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved had raised a dispute in KID No. 527/1995. The Labour Court by the award dated 28.12.1996 had set aside the order of dismissal, directed reinstatement and consequential benefits with 50% backwages. The petitioner had assailed the same in W.P. No. 35471/1998. The writ petition was dismissed by order dated 06.07.2001 and thereafter a writ appeal in No. 4744/2001 was filed. The Hon'ble Division Bench by the order dated 26.09.2002 upheld the reinstatement with continuity of service by setting aside the order with regard to payment of 50% of backwages. During the pendency of the said proceedings itself, the respondent herein filed an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) seeking computation of the amount payable to the respondent. The same was registered in Application No. 46/2002. The Labour Court by the order dated 29.09.2007 has held that the respondent is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 3,35,014/ - with interest. The petitioner herein therefore claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent -workman would however seek to sustain the order passed by the Labour Court. It is pointed out that since a contention is raised that the backwages has been set aside in the writ appeal, the Labour Court has taken note of the said order and keeping in view the point at which the respondent was required to be reinstated has taken into consideration the amount that is payable and in that light, the Labour Court has arrived at the conclusion that the difference of the amount that is payable insofar as the fixation and unpaid backwages and as such has quantified the amount, which does not call for interference.