INDIAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Vs. LABOUR COURT, DELHI (BY O.P. SINGLA, PRESIDING OFFICER), AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks the quashing of the order, dated 18 Aug. 1981, passed by Sri O. P. Singla, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi, in an application presented by C.L. Goel, the workman before him under Sub-section (2) of section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act\computing an amount of Rs. 23,897.50 claimed by the workman as being payable.

(2.) C.L. Goel the workman was in the employment of Ashoka Hotel, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the management), as a store keeper. The workman was issued a charge sheet-cwm-suspension order, dated 24 Jan. 1974. As a result of a departmental enquiry, an order, dated 21 July 1975, was passed by the management terminating the services of the workman. As there was pendency of proceedings in respect of an industrial dispute, an application under section 33(2)(b) of the Act was moved before the Additional Industrial Tribunal. During the pendency of those proceedings the management substituted the punishment of termination of the services of the workman imposed on him vide letter, dated 21 July 1975, with the stoppage of bis three annual increments with cumulative effect from the date of termination, i e., 21 July 1975 This was by the order of the management, dated 3 June 1977. The Additional Industrial Tribunal vide his order, dated 5 July 1977, dismissed the application of the management, under section 33(2)(b) of the Act as it did not subsist any longer. In the meanwhile, the workman joined his duties on 5 June 1977.

(3.) The workman moved an application on 3 May 1978, under section 33C (2) of the Act alleging that he is entitled to receive from the management the benefits mentioned in the statement annexed to the application. The basis of the claim was that the order of termination, dated 21 July 1975, became void and non-existent and the workman was deemed to be in continuous employment of the management from 24 Jan. 1974, and thus entitled to full wages from the date of suspension to the date of reinstatement along with other consequential benefits such as bonus, etc. The break up of the various items of claims are also mentioned in the statement of claim. The claim of the workman was resisted by the management. It was pleaded that the subsistence allowance already paid to the workman during,the period of his suspension from 24 Jan. 1974 to 21 July 1975, would be deemed sufficient and he was not entitled to any amount over and above the amount of subsistence allowance. It was further pleaded that the intervening period between the date of termination of his services, namely, 21 July 1975, and the date of his resuming duties, i.e., 5 June 1977, was directed to be treated as period without pay and this term was accepted by the workman and, therefore, the workman was not entitled to any wages for the period 21 July 1975 to 4 June 1977. A legal plea was taken about the scope and ambit of the provisions of section 33C (2) of the Act for the submission that the legality and justifiability of the order, dated 3 June 1977, could not be gone into in those proceedings as it could only be a subject-matter of an industrial dispute referable under section 10 (1) of the Act. The Labour Court framed an issue as to what amount, if any, is the workman entitled. The workman gave his own statement as W. W. 1. The management examined Sri. N.V. Krishnan, Labour Officer, as R. W. 1. The management also filed the copies of the Certified Standing Orders of the management as P. W. 1/3. The Labour Court in the impugned order expressed the opinion that there is provision in the Standing Orders of the management only in respect of suspension pending enquiry and payment of subsistence allowance during that period and there is no provision for the period after conclusion of enquiry and passing off or approval petition becoming in fructuous before the Industrial Tribunal after passing order of dismissal which order of dismissal is set aside by the management itself. The workman relied upon the Model Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Reliance was placed on rule 14(3)(c) of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders (Central) Rules, 1946, and on that basis the Labour Court held that the workman was entitled to full wages from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement with all consequential benefits accrued to him. The benefits were computed to Rs. 23,897.50 as claimed by the workman. Adding a sum of Rs. 102.50 as costs of the proceedings the management was directed to pay Rs. 24,000 to the workman.