M BAKTHAVATCHALAM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-workman in W.P.No,275 of 2008, who was employed under the second respondent-Management, has earlier moved the Labour Court by filing I.D.No,95 of 1996, claiming permanent status and also questioning the termination order. In the said I.D., an award was passed by the Labour Court on 21.01.1999, directing the Management to reinstate the workman and also to make him permanent and to pay consequential benefits. In the said award, in respect of the quantum of monetary relief, the Labour Court has directed the workman to file a claim petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) THE award passed in I.D.No,95 of 1996 came to be challenged by the second respondent-Management in Writ Petition No.13049 of 2002. By order dated 15.03.2007, this Court has confirmed the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No,95 of 1996, thereby holding that the workman is entitled for a permanent status and also for payment of salary. THEreafter, the petitioner filed C.P.No.126 of 1999 under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, claiming a sum of Rs.2,96,840/- and the Labour Court has passed an award on 27.03.2001 to an extent of Rs.2,75,252/-. THE said award passed by the Labour Court was challenged by the second respondent-Management in Writ Petition No.13889 of 2001 and the said writ petition came to be dismissed on 15.03.2007 by a common order along with the writ petition filed by the Management against the award passed in I.D.No,95 of 1996 as stated above. In the said award passed by the Labour Court in C.P.No.126 of 1999, the Labour Court while considering about the benefit claimed under surrender of Earned Leave has decided that the same is possible only after getting permission from the second respondent-Management and also in respect of the Children's Educational Allowance, the Labour Court in the said claim petition has held that inasmuch as there was no specific order in the earlier award passed in I.D.No,95 of 1996, the same was not succeeded too.

(3.) IN respect of the writ petition filed by the Management against the fixation of basic pay at the rate of 4,500/- and direction issued by the Labour Court to the Management to pay a sum of of Rs.31,456/-, a reference to the impugned award passed by the Labour Court would make it clear that the witness examined on the side of the Management has clearly admitted that the said fixation has been effected by the Management in respect of another employee, namely, one Raja, who has worked for eight years and three months, while admitting that the petitioner has worked as Clerk between the period from 01.03.1992 and 01.08.1999. IN fact, the Management Witness has also specifically admitted that the said fixation has been made in accordance with the settlement arrived at under section 18(1) of the Act and the same is applicable to all workmen. It was only taking note of the above said evidence on the side of the Management and after referring to the contents of Section 18(1) settlement entered between the Management and the Workmen, as marked as Exs.A4, A9 and B5, the Labour Court has come to a conclusion, in my view, correctly that the petitioner is entitled for the claim under the fixation of basic pay. There is absolutely no illegality in respect of the decision of the Labour Court under the impugned order regarding the fixation of basic pay and therefore, the writ petition filed by the Management in W.P.No.10473 of 2008 against that portion of the impugned award is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed.