SAJANKUMAR NATWARLAL RAV Vs. MILTON LAMINATES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Ms. Kamani, learned advocate for Mr. Pathak learned advocate for the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'workman') and Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate for respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'employer') for final disposal. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned, he is only a formal party. He has acted in a quasijudicial capacity.

(2.) THE present appeal is directed against the order dated 27.12.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.864 of 2005, whereby the learned Single Judge, for the reasons recorded in the order, has partly allowed the said petition and has further directed reinstatement on the equivalent post within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order with protection of pay, but has not granted any backwages and has, accordingly, modified the award passed by the Labour Court.

(3.) IT may be recorded that after the award passed by the Labour Court, Special Civil Application came to be preferred by the employer and in the main petition, the stay against the operation and implementation of the award was passed. It also appears that pending the stay granted in the main petition, an application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was made, but the same was, thereafter, withdrawn being Civil Application No.6627 of 2005. Subsequently, another application being Civil Application No.4403 of 2011 was preferred, under Section 17B of the Act, but the said application was dismissed by the Court since earlier such application was withdrawn. It appears that thereafter, the learned Single Judge heard the main Special Civil Application and the impugned order has been passed. After the order passed by the learned Single Judge, as per the appellantpetitioner, the award was not complied with inasmuch as the reinstatement was not made. Whereas as per the employer, the offer was made, but the workman insisted that until the backwages are paid or continuity of service is given, he would not join the duty. Be that as it may, the award was not complied with. The contempt petition was preferred by the workman being Miscellaneous Civil Application (For Contempt) No.2651 of 2013 in Special Civil Application No.864 of 2005. This Court had entertained the contempt proceedings and pending the contempt proceedings, reinstatement was effected from 24.02.2014. When the contempt application was to be further heard on the aspect of nonpayment of backwages, this Court found that there is no clear direction of the learned Single Judge on the aspect of backwages after the award until actual reinstatement, and therefore, the learned counsel for the workman withdrew the contempt application with a view to move appropriate application before the learned Single Judge for clarification. It appears that thereafter, Miscellaneous Civil Application for clarification being No.865 of 2014 was preferred in Special Civil Application No.864 of 2005. However, in the said application for clarification, the learned Single Judge maintained the order and did not further clarify the order. Under these circumstances, the workman has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge so far it relates to the award of backwages. In response, the respondent employer has preferred cross objections against the order passed by the learned Single Judge for maintaining to the reinstatement. There is delay in preferring the cross objections. However, as the present appeal preferred was connected with the said cross objection and the common issues are involved, we have directed the Office to place the cross objections for hearing simultaneously with the present appeal vide order dated 13.01.2015, and today, the present appeal is placed with the cross objections. Under these circumstances, we have heard Mr. Dipak Dave, learned counsel for the employer on merits of the cross objections also.