INDIAN REFRIGERATION INDUSTRIES Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the management against an order of Shri Ved Parkash Aggarwal, Labour Court, Delhi, dated December 18, 1965 (Annexure "l" ). By this order the Labour Court has awarded to the workman Hardial Singh back wages at the rate of Rs. 100 per month from September 16, 1964 to February 28, 1965, computed at Rs. 550 besides Rs. 150 on account of bonus, making a total of Rs. 700 while the claim of the workman for travelling allowance and dearness allowance has been rejected in an application under Section 33c of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) THE material facts of the case are that Hardial Singh (second respondent) was an employee of the petitioners and was dismissed by them on May 2, 1963. Since an industrial dispute had been pending, the petitioners applied to the Industrial Tribunal for grant of approval of dismissal of the workman. The same was, however, refused by Shri Anand Narain Kaul. Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, by order dated October 24, 1963. In view of the authorities reported in Straw Board Manufacturing Company, Saharanpur v. Govind 1962-I L. L. J. 420, and Kesoram Cotton Mills Limited v. Gangadhar and Ors. the legal effect of the refusal of approval by the Industrial Tribunal is that the dismissal of the workman concerned is void and ineffective and the workman continues to be in service.

(3.) THEREAFTER the petitioners did not pay the wages of the workman and so he was obliged to institute proceedings for computation of the benefits by the Labour Court. One such computation was made for the period May 2, 1963 to November 30, 1963 and an appeal and a writ petition against the same failed. The workman also obtained some relief under the Payment of Wages Act for another period. The period in dispute in the writ petition is from September 16, 1964 to February 28, 1965. The workman had made an application under Sub-section (2) of Section 33c of the Industrial Disputes Act. The management (petitioners before me) raised a number of objections including the non-maintainability of the petition and alleged failure of the workman to report for duty upto February 3, 1964. They also pleaded the bar of res judicata.