RANGARATHINAM PILLAI Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Rangarathinam Pillai, was employed as an accountant under respondent 2, the management of Coimbatore Murugan Mills, Ltd. , Coimbatore. The management terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from 25 September 1958. As an industrial dispute was pending at that time before the industrial tribunal, Madras, the petitioner filed an application before the same industrial tribunal under Section 33a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, challenging the termination order. The industrial tribunal, after going into the merits of the case, passed an award on 23 January 1959, holding that the termination of the petitioner's service was in contravention of Section 33 of the Act, and directed that the petitioner should be reinstated with back-wages. This award was published in the Fort St. George Gazette on 18 February 1959, and under the rules, the management ought to have enforced it by 18 March 1959, but it did not do so. It filed Writ Petition No. 273 of 1959 in this Court challenging the award, and this writ petition was dismissed on 16 September 1960. The writ appeal hled by the management was also dismissed on 8 November 1960. A petition filed by the management before this Court for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was also dismissed. Then respondent 2 management filed a petition before the Supreme Court for grant of special leave. During the pendency of the petition for special leave, the Supreme Court at the instance of respondent 2 granted stay of the award on condition that respondent 2 should deposit one-half of the back-wages due to the petitioner from the date when the award became enforceable (18 March 1959) till the disposal of the appeal before the Supreme Court along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the balance of the amount due to the petitioner, in case the appeal fails. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on 11 November 1964 with costs of the petitioners. Respondent 2 reinstated the petitioner in service with effect from 12 January 1965 since all his attempts to set aside the award failed.

(2.) THEREAFTER, the petitioner filed an application before the labour court, Coimbatore, under Section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming the following reliefs:<FRM>JUDGEMENT_119_TLMAD0_1968Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) THE labour court, after an elaborate enquiry, disallowed the claim for bonus and leave-salary, but allowed the claim for costs in the High Court and costs in the Supreme Court. In regard to the claim for back-wages, the labour court found, after taking evidence, that the petitioner during the period between the date when the award became enforceable (18 March 1959) and the date when he was reinstated in service (12 January 1965) had been employed in several other places and had received salary. The finding of the labour court was that in computing the back-wages, besides one-half of the back-wages already deposited, the petitioner would be entitled to recover from respondent 2 the balance of the amount if other earnings for the particular month are less than half of his wages. If it is more, the petitioner will not be entitled to the half back-wages for the month, nor could he take the excess which he had earned daring that month into consideration towards deduction of his claim for another month.