PEER MOHAMED AND CO Vs. MOHAMED HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Peer Mohamed and Co. , has filed this petition to quash the order, dated 27 October 1964, of the presiding officer, additional labour court, Madras, made in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1964, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 582. 33 to respondent 1 employee in an application filed by him under Section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming back-wages for the period commending from 23 September 1961 to 5 May 1962 and salary for the subsequent period from May 1962 to 80 November 1963, amounting in all to Rs. 1,350.

(2.) RESPONDENT 1 was originally employed under the petitioner on a salary of Rs. 60 per month. His services were terminated without any reason on 23 September 1961. Respondent 1 preferred an appeal under Section 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act before the Commissiner for Workmen's Com-pensation, Madras. The Additional Commissioner, by his order, dated 6 May 1963, set aside the order of termination of the petitioner and directed reinstatement of respondent 1. Respondent 1 did not either report himself for duty or call upon the petitioner within a reasonable time to put him in service after the order of termination was set aside by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. But it was only on 2 April 1963, respondent 1 sent a notice complaining that the petitioner had not taken any step in pursuance of the order setting aside the termination of his service. In this letter, it is true that respondent 1 complained that ha approached the petitioner in person and requested him to reinstate him in service and that the petitioner did not give him proper reply. On the other hand; the petitioner has adduced evidence that, though the order of termination of the service of respondent was set aside by the Additional Commissioner for Workman's Compensation as early as 5 May 1962, respondent did not offer himself for the post he held formaly in the company. Further, there was material placed before the labour court to show that respondent was there-after working in the firm of Jafarali Motijamal and Bros. and others between July 1963 and November 1963. The presiding officer of the labour court has given a finding that respondent 1 had earned Rs. 767. 67 during that period. He, therefore, deducted this sum from the amount claimed and passed an order to the effect than the amount due to respondent 1 by way of computation was Rs. 582. 33. It is this order of the labour court the petitioner wants to quash by a writ of certiorari.

(3.) IN my view, an important question arises for consideration, namely, whether, after an order of termination from service was set aside by a tribunal, it is the duty of the employer to invite the former employee to join service or whether it is the duty of the employee concerned either to claim, demand or insist upon the employee that he should be reinstated in his former job in the company.