DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. CHAMPABEN S SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.08.1996 passed by the Labour Court in Recovery Application No. 400 of 1990, whereby the Labour Court had partly allowed the application and directed the petitioner Corporation to pay an amount of Rs.1,64,049.60 paise along with interest towards difference in salary for the period between 01.08.1985 to 06.06.1992.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the respondent herein is the wife of deceased workman, who was working as Driver at Dabhoi depot of the petitioner Corporation. The workman was dismissed from the service w.e.f. 31.07.1975 for the offence committed by him on 08.02.1975. Being aggrieved by the dismissal order, the workman raised an industrial dispute which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court for adjudication being Reference. No. 1219/77. The Labour Court vide order dated 25.01.1985, directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the workman in service without back wages. Pursuant thereto, the workman was reinstated in service w.e.f. 03.05.1985. 2.1. Against the said order, the petitioner Corporation and the workman preferred cross petitions being Special Civil Application No. 3717 of 1989 and Special Civil Application No. 1957 of 1998 before the Court. However, both the petitions were admitted vide order dated 11.07.1990, but no stay was granted. Thereafter, again in August, 1985, the workman was dismissed from the service w.e.f. 06.08.1985 and he was paid remuneration @ Rs.335/ per month. The workman thereafter had preferred Recovery Application No. 400 of 1990 before the Labour Court for recovery of salary from 03.09.1985. Pending the Recovery Application, the workman expired on 16.02.1992 and thereafter the wife of the deceased workman was brought on record of the said recovery application. The wife of the deceased workman claimed recovery of salary from 03.09.1985 to 16.06.1992. Before the Labour Court both the parties adduced evidence and after appreciating the material produced before it, the Labour Court partly allowed the Recovery Application with the aforesaid directions. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It appears that the deceased workman was reinstated in service w.e.f. 03.05.1985. However, subsequently, the deceased workman was discharged from service w.e.f. 06.08.1985 subject to provisions of Section 17B of the Act. Therefore, whatever, payment made by monthly salary was not paid as per award and therefore, the deceased workman was entitled to regular wages and increments and revised salary which was not given to the deceased workman. In the impugned award the Labour Court had discussed the entire evidence in detail and I find that while arriving at the conclusion the Labour Court has not committed any illegality which warrants any interference from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given and findings arrived at by the Labour Court and hence, do not find any reason to interfere with the same.