EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. CHANDRAKANTH SHANKAR NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 31.07.2007 impugned at Annexure -D to the petition. By the said order, the Deputy Labour Commissioner has directed that a sum of Rs.19,37,001/ - be recovered as arrears of land revenue, if the said amount is not deposited.

(2.) THE Union representing the workmen who had raised a dispute in AID No.10/1974, based on the award dated 27.02.1976 filed an application under Section 33 -C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('I.D. Act' for short) with the Labour Commissioner, Belgaum District seeking payment of the amount in terms of the award. At the first instance, the Deputy Labour Commissioner had issued Recovery Certificate dated 08.04.2004. The petitioner herein claiming to be aggrieved by the same was before this Court in W.P.No.10601/2006. In the said petition, it was contended that all the 32 workmen were not entitled to payment of the amount. In that regard, a contention had also been put forth that the workmen whose details were indicated at the respective serial numbers as respondents had been granted the benefit as they were employed on a permanent basis in different positions and that aspect of the matter had not been considered by the Deputy Labour Commissioner. This Court by the order dated 09.01.2007, on taking note of the said contention had quashed the order dated 08.04.2004 and remitted the matter to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, with a direction to consider the objections filed by the petitioner and also the claim of respective workmen and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the present impugned order dated 31.07.2007 has been passed.

(3.) THE contention raised in the instant writ petition and the contention put forth by the learned Government Advocate is infact the very same contention which had been urged in the earlier petition in W.P.No.10601/2006. In that light, the learned Government Advocate would contend that despite this Court quashing the earlier order and the matter being remanded to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the Deputy Labour Commissioner has not taken into consideration the said objection of the Government to come to the conclusion as to whether the claim as made based on the award passed in AID No.10/1974 dated 27.02.1976 would enure to the benefit of all the 32 workmen. In that regard, it is contended that the persons whose serial numbers were mentioned as the respondents had been employed as watchman, cleaners, work inspectors and literate assistants and therefore the benefit upto the year 1999 cannot be claimed by them. The contention therefore is that even if the benefits are worked out from the point when the dispute had been raised in the year 1974, the same should cease at a point when the said respondents were employed in different capacities and this aspect ought to have been considered by the Deputy Labour Commissioner.