S.THIRUMALAISWAMY Vs. THE MANAGER, CHEMBRA ESTATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who unsuccessfully claimed grant of interest on the amount awarded under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( for short the 'Act') challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.27375/2011. The appellant was a workman under the 1st respondent. He was working as a Group Electrician -cum -Mechanic from 1972 onwards. He was terminated from service in the year 1984. He raised an industrial dispute that was the subject matter of I.D No.22/1984 before the Labour Court, Kozhikode. As per award dated 29 -02 -1988, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the appellant with back wages. Though the appellant was reinstated in service and he joined duty on 21 -07 -1988, he was not paid his back wages as directed by the Labour Court.

(2.) In the above circumstances, he filed C.P.No.78/1991 under Section 33C(2) of the Act before the Labour Court, Kannur. As per Ext.P2 order dated 26 -02 -1993, the Labour Court directed an amount of Rs.1,68,682/ - (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Two only) to be paid to the appellant, immediately. According to the appellant, in spite of Ext.P2 order, the amount that was determined by the Labour Court was not paid. Therefore, he approached this Court by filing O.P.No.1892/1995. The said Original Petition was finally disposed of by this Court by Ext.P3 judgment dated 13 -06 -2005. In the Writ Petition, the appellant had claimed that in view of the inordinate delay in payment of the amount quantified by the Labour Court, he was entitled to claim interest on the amount that was awarded. This Court held that there had been no adjudication on the claim for interest made by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant was directed to institute separate proceedings for enforcing his claim for interest. This Court noticed that, the principal amount had been tendered to the appellant and that he had declined to receive the same. Therefore, it was found that, it was for the appellant to receive the payment and then claim interest in accordance with law. According to the appellant, in spite of Ext.P3 judgment, the amount was not paid. Therefore, the appellant sought for the initiation of Revenue Recovery proceedings for recovery of the amount invoking Section 33C of the Act. Pursuant to Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated, the amount was finally paid on 12 -11 -2007. However, only the principal amount was paid. Since no interest was paid, the appellant filed C.P.No.14/2008 before the Labour Court, Kannur, claiming interest. However, by Ext.P7 order dated 22 -07 -2011, the claim for interest was disallowed. W.P.(C) No.27375/2011 was filed by the appellant challenging Ext.P7 order. After considering the claim for interest made by the appellant, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition finding that the appellant was entitled to claim interest only for the period from 13 -06 -2005 to 12 -11 -2007, that too @ 6% per annum. The appellant is aggrieved by the said judgment.

(3.) According to Advocate Philip Mathew who appears for the appellant, the workman had been dismissed from service without any justification. It was for the reason that, his termination was set aside and a direction issued, to reinstate him with full back wages. Though the said direction was issued on 29 -02 -1988, the direction to pay back wages was not complied with. Later on, as per order dated 26 -02 -1993 of the Labour Court in Ext.P2, the amount was quantified and fixed at Rs.1,68,682/ -. Even after quantification, the amount was not paid. The same was finally paid only on 12 -11 -2007 after Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated for recovery of the amount. Therefore, it is contended that the appellant is entitled to be paid interest for the period from 29 -02 -1988 to 12 -11 -2007. The counsel also placed reliance on various decisions to support his contention that the back wages ordered to be paid to the workman are with the object of restoring to him all that he had lost by virtue of his termination from service. Therefore, any dilution of the quantum that has been determined by the Labour Court either by denial of payment of interest or by reduction thereof would work injustice.