SANGAYYA Vs. PRECISION TOOLING SYSTEMS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by writ petitioner in W.P.No.104152/2014, being aggrieved by the order dated 01.08.2017, whereunder the order passed by Labour Court dated 06.11.2013 in Application No.30/2012 insofar as disallowing the claim petition filed under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short I.D. Act) in excess of Rs.1,62,879.19 (as per Annexure-G) came to be modified and held that petitioner is entitled for additional sum of Rs.92,509.22 towards increment and D.A. from 11.12.2000 to 30.09.2012 with simple interest @ 6% p.a.

(2.) It is the specific case of the petitioner that he was working with respondent Nos.1 and 2 from 07.04.1981 till 08.05.1991 and was illegally terminated on 08.05.1991. Hence, questioning the same a dispute came to be raised in KID No.121/1991 which came to be dismissed by Labour Court, Hubballi and being aggrieved by the same petitioner had preferred W.P.No.31291/2001 before this Court. Said writ petition came to be allowed on 01.03.2006 by directing the employer to reinstate the petitioner and to adjust the amount paid in the salary to be payable to the workman while settling his dues. Review of this order sought for by Management in R.P.No.264/2006 came to be rejected on 27.09.2006. The management had also challenged the order of learned Single Judge in W.A.No.1798/2006 which came to be dismissed on 13.12.2006 and SLP filed thereon before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the management in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6232/2007 also came to be dismissed on 26.03.2007. Thus, order of learned Single Judge directing reinstatement of petitioner attained finality.

(3.) After order of reinstatement attained finality, petitioner filed an application under Section 33-C(1) of I.D. Act for recovery of back wages and other remedies on the ground that same has been granted by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.31291/2001 and it was not being paid by the management. The said petition came to be adjudicated by the Labour Commissioner and recovery certificate came to be issued in favour of petitioner for an amount of Rs.5,09,850/- by order dated 29.03.2007. Same was challenged by respondents 1 and 2 herein in W.P.Nos.15507/2007, 17741/2007 and 14875/2007 which came to be allowed on 10.11.2011 by quashing the order of the Labour Commissioner. Hence, petitioner filed an appeal in W.A.Nos.30348-30350/2012, which came to be dismissed on 17.07.2012, by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Labour Court by way of an application under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act.