AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, the Director (Administration) of the National Airports Authority of India vide this Writ Petition, impugns the award dated 25.05.2005 of the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-II, New Delhi whereby the claimant / respondent herein Sh. Suresh Kumar whose services were terminated with effect from 01.11.1995 was held entitled to be reinstated with effect from 01.11.1995 (within one month from the publication of the award) to the post of Safai Karamchari with 25% back wages with directions that in case of default, the workman i.e. the respondent herein would be entitled to get 10% interest over the entire back wages.

(2.) Notice of this petition was issued to the claimant / respondent herein Sh. Suresh Kumar in terms of order dated 07.12.2005 and RULE was issued vide order dated 20.10.2010. During the course of the proceedings vide order dated 09.09.2011 in C.M. Application No.10451/2010 under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (filed by the applicant i.e. respondent herein only on 30.07.2010) (hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act , 1947) filed by the respondent submitting that he had not been gainfully employed in any establishment after the date of termination of his services on 01.11.1995, the management i.e. the petitioner herein was directed to pay the last drawn wages or the minimum wages whichever was higher from 01.08.2010 onwards and continue to pay the same during the pendency of the petition and it was further directed that monthly wages would be paid to the respondent by the 7th day of each month with the arrears of wages directed to be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of the said order. The respondent was further directed to file an undertaking by way of an affidavit stating that in the event of the petitioner succeeding in the writ petition, the respondent would refund to the petitioner management, the difference between the minimum wages and the last drawn wages. The said undertaking was filed by the respondent by way of an affidavit dated 20.09.2011.

(3.) Arguments were addressed in the present petition on behalf of the petitioner by learned counsel Mr. Vaibhav Kalra and on behalf of the respondent by learned counsel Mr. Atul T.N.