V ACHUTHAN NAIR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 4.7.81 while he was working as driver in the second respondent management. The petitioner filed I.D.No.134 of 1982 and was unsuccessful. Thereafter, he preferred W.P.No.3724 of 1984 questioning the award. This Court while allowing the writ petition remanded the matter to the Labour Court, Coimbatore for passing fresh award on merits. By award dated 13.9.93 the Labour Court found that the non employment of the petitioner was not justified since the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.92. The Labour Court did not direct reinstatement, but directed the second respondent management to pay the monetary benefits for the period of non employment upto 30.6.92 to the petitioner.

(2.) Based upon the said award, the petitioner issued lawyer's notice dated 28.7.94 to the second respondent requesting for compliance of the award. The second respondent refused to comply with the award in their reply dated 12.8.94. Therefore, the petitioner filed a claim petition in C.P.No.172 of 1994 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming backwages in a sum of Rs.1,30,902/-. The second respondent contested the said claim in respect of quantum on the ground that the petitioner was allegedly employed in Mayilvaganan Motors at Kalapally from 1983 as a temporary driver on daily wage basis and therefore he was not entitled to wages from the year 1983 to 30.6.92 and the petitioner was entitled only to Rs.9,814.89 for the period of non employment upto 31.12.82. However, the petitioner denied the said claim of the second respondent as to his employment. The Labour Court having come to the conclusion that the second respondent management did not establish the claim that the petitioner was employed in Mayilvaganan Motors, had directed the second respondent to pay only 50% of the wages. The said order of the first respondent is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) Mr.D.Hariparanthaman, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that when the award was passed in I.D.No.134 of 1982 dated 13.9.93 holding the non employment as not justified and by directing the second respondent to pay the petitioner all monetary benefits for the period of non employment from the date of dismissal till 30.6.92, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to reduce the amount awarded in the I.D. while considering the claim petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law.