LAWS(DLH)-2010-3-244

ATIQ Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT IX

Decided On March 04, 2010
MOHD.ATIQ Appellant
V/S
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT IX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner workman has preferred this writ petition with respect to the award st dated 1 September, 1998 of the Labour Court on the following reference "Whether the termination of services of S/Sh. Jagdish Chander and Mohd. Atiq is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?" The award holds the inquiry held by the respondent No.2 employer for termination of both the workmen to be illegal but holds that the relief of reinstatement had become infeasible for the reason of both the workmen having crossed the age of retirement. The award thus only grants the relief to both the workmen of the quantum of last drawn wages from the date of termination till the date of retirement. The award notices that the workman Shri Jagdish Chander was last drawing wages at the rate of Rs.587.25p per month and the petitioner herein Mohd. Atiq was drawing wages at the rate of Rs.350/- per month.

(2.) The respondent No.2 employer did not challenge the award. However both the workmen preferred separate writ petitions with respect to the award; the writ petition of Mohd. Atiq being the writ petition under consideration and the writ petition of Shri Jagdish Chander having been numbered as CW No.5899/1998. Though at one stage both the writ petitions were being taken up together but CW No.5899/1998 was decided vide judgment dated 15th October, 2004. The award was modified to the extent that Shri Jagdish Chander, petitioner in that writ petition, was held entitled to consequential benefits in addition to the relief of wages. The said judgment has attained finality.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner seeks the disposal of this writ petition also in terms of the judgment aforesaid in the case of Shri Jagdish Chander. It is the contention of the counsel for the respondent No.2 employer that the claim of the petitioner is not for consequential benefits. The prayer clause in the writ petition which is as under:-