DO ALL INDUSTRIES Vs. MAGANBHAI DAHYABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Pathak learned advocate for the respondents waives the service of rule. Do all Industries and Industrial undertaking has filed the present petition to challenge the award passed by the Labour Court of Ahmedabad in recovery application No. 1428 of 1990 on 5.9.1997.

(2.) The respondent Maganbhai Dahyabhai was a workman with the present petitioner since 5.2.1973. As he was wrongly reternched he raised an industrial dispute which has resulted into reference No. 598/1975. The said reference No. 598/75 ended into an award in his favour passed on 3rd September, 1980.. Therefore the respondent filed recovery application No. 1486/81 to recover the amount in term of the said award. In para-5 of the said recovery application, initially the arrears of pay and wages upto 31st August, 1981 were claimed. Subsequently, amendment was sought in the said application and the arrears of pay till September, 1987 was claimed, During the said recovery application No. 1486/81 the present petitioner-the employer raised contention that after the award was passed, they had called upon the respondent workman to join the job by sending him a letter by RPAD but he didn't join the job. It was further contended that the respondent workman had himself purchased a rickshaw and he was running his rickshaw and therefore he was not interested in the job. In the said recovery application, evidence was led by the both the sides and after considering the evidence which included the documents showing purchase of rickshaw by the respondent and the statement on oath of the present respondent, the Labour Court found that the claim of the present petitioner that the respondent had not resumed his job though intimated by the peitioner and the respondent was not interested in job as he had purchased rickshaw and he was running the rickshaw, was true and correct. The Labour Court considered particularly the statement on oath of the workman and other documentary evidence on record and then the Labour Court held that as the workman himself has not joined the job as per the terms of the award and he had abundened the job as he was not interested in joining the job, he was not entitled to get any pay and wages, after the date of award. The Labour Court found that as the award had directed to pay backwages from the date of dismissal, the workman was entitled to get the backwages till the date of award and Court specifically rejected his claim for awarding backwages from the date of award till September, 1987 as claimed in the application by holding that he was not entitled as he had not joined his duty and had abandoned. Admittedly the respondent had not challenged the order passed by the Labour Court in the said recovery application No. 1486/81 by taking up the matter to superior authority.

(3.) No doubt, the present petitioner had challenged the original award passed in Reference No. 558/75 as well as the order of Labour Court passed in recovery application No. 1486/81 by preferring SCA No. 6455/89. The said SCA No. 6455/89 preferred by the present petitioner was rejected by confirming the order passed by the Labour Court in the recovery application No. 1486/81 as well as the award passed in reference No. 558/75. It is very pertinent to note that in the said petition respondent had appeared. The present petitioner had disputed and challenged the order of payment of backwages till the date of award. That claim was rejected by this Court. But the respondent had not either challenged the denial of wages from the date of award by preferring a separate petition or even by raising a contention to that effect in the petition filed by the present petitioner.