DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. ABDULSALAM ABDULSATTAR KHODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are filed challenging the award and order dtd. 12/4/2017 passed by the Labour Court in Recovery (C-2) Application No.637 of 2014. It is the case where the petitioner-employer corporation has challenged the order in Recovery Application as in the recovery application, the directions are issued to grant monetary benefits from 1998, the date on which the respondent-workman was ordered to be reinstated under a settlement award with interest at the rate of 9%.

(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the fault lies with the respondent as though the settlement was way back in the year 1998, the respondent was asked to resume duty in the year 1999. The respondent- workman has not resumed his duty, but has straightway filed a recovery application in the year 2014 which is after a delay of 15 years. According to the petitioner, there is no explanation as to why the respondent-workman has not resumed pursuant to the award and there is no reason why the respondent workman would not have implemented the award once the award was passed on the basis of settlement. Therefore, it submitted that it was the respondent workman who has failed to resume duty and thereafter, after a long delay of 15 years has filed a recovery application. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that after filing of the recovery application, the respondent-workman has been reinstated in the year 2017.

(3.) As against this, learned advocate Mr.G.K.Rathod appearing for the respondent-workman submitted that it was primarily the duty of the petitioner-corporation to implement the award which was drawn by way of settlement and that no action has been taken by the petitioner-corporation to permit the respondent corporation to resume the duty. He draws attention of this Court to various communications which would indicate that the respondent had made attempt to resume the duty. It is submitted that considering such documents placed on record of the Labour Court, the Labour Court has arrived at a finding that it was the petitioner corporation who had not acted according to the award and therefore, were liable to pay the monetary benefit by treating the respondent who has resumed the duty pursuant to the award in the year 1998 with interest at the rate of 9%.