SADBHAV ENGINEERING LIMITED Vs. GHANSHYAMBHAI B PANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dtd. 10/11/2017 by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Recovery Application No.244 of 2013 made in connection with Reference (LCA) No.834 of 1996, whereby the Labour Court had ordered paying of full wages for a period from 1/4/2006 to 30/3/2013.

(2.) It is the case where the petitioner had made a Reference (LCA) No.834 of 1996 against the illegal termination which came to be allowed by the Labour Court by award dtd. 28/2/2006 by which the respondent-workman was ordered to be reinstated with 25% back-wages.

(3.) Learned advocate Mrs. Yogini Parikh appearing for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the Labour Court, Recovery Application No.814 of 2006 came to be filed by the respondent-workman and under that the Labour Court had passed an order for paying Rs.97,500.00 towards 25% back-wages and reinstatement which the petitioner has duly complied with and called upon the respondent-workman to join the duty at its plan at Orissa. However, the respondent-workman did not join and after almost a period of seven years, filed the present recovery application on 1/5/2013 claiming the salary of the entire period as if the respondent-workman has reported on duty and has performed his duty. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court has committed jurisdictional error in entering into adjudicatory process in an application which was filed under Sec. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"), which is a provision exclusively for the purpose of execution of the award. In the instant case, where the respondent-workman has filed an application for recovery claiming the salary on the basis that he had approached the petitioner company at Orissa, but was not permitted to resume the duty, is a disputed question which requires adjudication by making a reference, however no such procedure has been followed and as if the say of the respondent-workman is a gospel truth, the impugned order has been passed. Learned advocate for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the relevant submissions made by the petitioner in its written reply, contesting the version of the respondent workman that the workman had traveled to Orissa for joining his duty and was not permitted to. Despite this disputed question, the Labour Court has proceeded to pass the impugned order, directing issuance of recovery certificate for an amount equivalent to the salary for the period between 2006 to 2013 as if the petitioner has performed its duty.