VRAJLAL RAGHURAM JOSHI Vs. DEPUTY ENGINEER PWD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The facts which are not in dispute are as under : The petitioner entered in the employment of the respondent No. 1 on 1-5-1972 as Clerk. His services came to be terminated on 15-7-1976. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the same has been referred to the Labour Court at Rajkot which was registered as Reference (L.C.R.) No. 256/78. In those proceedings, a settlement came to be arrived at between the parties and on the basis of the settlement, the Labour Court has passed the award in terms thereof. As per condition No. 5 of the settlement, the petitioner should be treated as having worked in the capacity of Clerk with continuity of service and all other legal rights but not for back wages. So as per the said condition, the respondent No. 1 was duty bound to pay to the petitioner, wages, D.A., A.D.A, medical allowance, house rent allowance, L.T.C. benefit and other facilities of leave etc, in the way in which the said benefits are admissible and payable to other employees of the respondent No. 1. The petitioner was reinstated in pursuance of the award. Thereafter he made a claim for other benefits to be given to him but it was not given and hence he filed recovery application No. 537/81 before the Labour Court at Rajkot under Sec. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court at Rajkot passed an order on 19th January, 1984 detrmining the total amount due and payble to the petitioner by the respondent No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 23087-92 and Rs. 150/- by way of costs.

(3.) The petitioner filed another application being recovery application No. 187/84 before the Labour Court at Rajkot requesting the issuance of certificates directing the respondent No.3 to recover the amount in question from the first respodent by way of land revenue. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court, Rajkot ordered for issuance of the certificate for the recovery of the said amount in favour of the petitioner. That certificate was sent to the Collector, Rajkot but the amount has not been recovered by the said authority as land revenue. Hence, this special civil application before this Court.