SURESH KUMAR K. Vs. GANESH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the above two appeals are arising out of one and the same order dated 21/11/104 of the learned Single Judge in IA No. 11217/2014 in WP (C) No. 32138/2013 and particularly, the question of law and the facts are identical, the above appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. Writ Appeal No. 1873/2014 is preferred at the instance of the workman, who is the 1st respondent in WP (C) No. 32138/2013 and the petitioner in IA No. 11217/2014 in the above writ petition; whereas WA No. 1921/2014 is preferred by the management, who is the petitioner in the writ petition as well as the respondent in IA No. 11217/2014. Short facts, which led to the impugned order are as follows:

(2.) The appellants in WA No. 1873/2014 and WA No. 1921/2014 are respectively the workman and the management. For the convenience, herein after they are referred to as the workman and management accordingly. A dispute arose between the workman and the management, which was brought to the Labour Court, Kozhikode under sub-section 2 of Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred for short as 'ID Act' only). According to the workman, he was an employee under the management and his service was commenced in January 2004. It is alleged by the workman that the management denied employment to him in contravention of the basic principles of natural justice and when an attempt for an amicable settlement was failed, he made an application before the District Labour Officer, Kozhikode for initiation of conciliation proceedings in the above dispute, which was also not materialised and thereafter, in accordance with the procedure, the workman filed industrial dispute before the Labour Court with the prayers to reinstate him in service of the management with continuity of service and all attendant benefits. It appears that the Labour Court observed that though notice was served on the management, they failed to contest the industrial dispute, accordingly, they were set ex parte and finally an award was passed, which was produced as Ext. P2 before the learned Single Judge. As per the award dated 22/12/2012 in I.D. No. 42/2012, the Labour Court, Kozhikode held that the denial of employment to the workman by the management is unjustifiable and accordingly, the same was set aside. Consequently, the management was directed to reinstate the workman in their service as such with continuity of service with effect from 10/08/2010, within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of the award. It was also declared that the workman will be entitled to get all arrears of wages from the management and continuity of service with effect from 10/08/2010 till he is reinstated in the service of the management and on failure of the management to comply with the above directions contained in the award within the stipulated time, it was also declared that the workman will have every right to realise the arrears of wages and all monetary benefits from the management as per law.

(3.) Aggrieved by the above award, the management approached this Court on 19/12/2013 by filing WP (C) No. 32138/2013. During the pendency of the above writ petition, the workman, who is the 1st respondent in the above writ petition, preferred IA No. 11217/2014 under Section 17B of the I.D. Act. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the workman and the management, passed the impugned order and while extending the right of the workman to have the back wages, it was specifically directed that the back wages shall be paid prospectively under Section 17B of the I.D. Act at the rate of last wages drawn from November, 2014 onwards. Aggrieved by the above rider, by which the benefit was restricted to the workman only prospectively, the workman filed WA No. 1873/2014 against the said order.