KODUVAYUR S C B Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant in this appeal filed the original petition to quash Ext. P5 order of the Labour Court passed under S.33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Third respondent employee filed the claim petition claiming interest on the security deposit deposited by him in the Bank. Third respondent was appointed in the year 1967. An amount of Rs. 2,000/- was taken from him as security. Under the terms of the agreement, the management bank was liable to pay interest on the security to the third respondent employee every year. Interest was paid to him upto 1.7.1970. In the year 1971, third respondent was produced against for alleged deficit in stock which was detected at the time of scrutiny of the accounts for the year 1970-71 and he was placed under suspension pending enquiry. In the domestic enquiry, he was found guilty and he was dismissed from service. His dismissal was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal passed an award on 16.2.1978 confirming the dismissal. It was challenged before this Court by the third respondent by filing O.P. No. 2606/78. The matter was remanded for reconsideration by the Tribunal. Thereafter, fresh award was passed by the Tribunal setting aside the order of dismissal. The Tribunal also directed reinstatement of the third respondent. The Tribunal; however, denied back wages. The appellant bank challenged the above award in so far as it found that the third respondent is not responsible for the deficit in stock and third respondent is entitled to reinstatement. Third respondent also challenged the award to the extent of denial of back wages to him. Both the original petitions were dismissed by a common judgment. This court found that there was no reason to interfere with the finding entered by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the claim petition was filed for realisation on interest due to the third respondent for an amount of Rs. 2,000/- deposited with the society for the period from 1.7.1970 to 30.6.1988.

(2.) The appellant bank contended before the Labour Curt that the petition is not maintainable. It admitted the deposit of Rs.2000/-Butaccordingtothebank,theabove amount was adjusted towards value of deficit in stock which was found during the year 1970-71. Labour Court held that the petition under S.33C(2) is maintainable. The fact that in terms of the agreement with the third respondent the bank had to pay interest on the security amount and interest was being paid upto 1.7.1970 was not disputed. The only incidental question to be considered was that whether the contention of the petitioner that the amount was already adjusted towards value of the deficit in stock is correct or not. The Labour Court found that the employer had admitted receipt of the deposit and also the terms in the agreement that the workman is entitled to interest on the amount of deposit The contention that the workman is not entitled to interest on the security amount as the amount has been adjusted towards the value of the deficit in stock was rejected by the Labour Court on the ground that the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode had already found that the workman cannot be held responsible for the shortage. Therefore, Ext. P5 order was passed by the Labour Court granting interest at the rate of 12% for Rs. 2,000/- from 1.7.1970 to 30.6.1988 which comes to Rs. 4,080/-. The learned single Judge did not accept the contention of the appellant that petition under S.33C(2) is not maintainable and confirmed Ext. P5 order.

(3.) It is contended by the appellant / petitioner that the liability to pay interest is a civil liability and, therefore, it cannot be claimed in a proceeding under S.33C(2) of the Act. Secondly, it was contended that since the amount was adjusted the liability to pay interest on the security deposit cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding under S.33C(2) as it is a proceeding in the nature of execution. Therefore, it is prayed that Ext. P5 order of the Labour Court as well as the judgment of the learned Single Judge should be set aside.