WORKMAN REP Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed for directing the second respondent/manager to pay the petitioner/workman his last drawn wages of Rs. 475 under S. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act from 24th July, 1985 onwards pending disposal of the writ petition.

(2.) THE facts which are necessary for the disposal of this application can be briefly stated as follows : The petitioner was working as an earth loader in the limestone quarry maintained by the second respondent. By virtue of a settlement, dated 8th June, 1978 the second respondent agreed to take the workmen on the rolls of K. D. P. and Company and six other unlicensed contractors with effect from 1st April, 1978 on the same terms and conditions applicable to regular employees of India Cements Ltd. , subject to their being medically fit. The petitioner was informed on 11th August, 1978 by the second respondent that their company's medical officer found that he was suffering from leprosy and by another letter dated 8th November, 1978 it was intimated that the could appear before the District Medical Officer, Salem if he was aggrieved by the opinion of the company's medical officer, The second respondent terminated the services of the petitioner on 19th December, 1978 on the ground that the District Medical Officer found him unfit to work in the quarry. The petitioner herein obtained two certificates from two skin specialists to the effect that it is a non-infective disease and that he can do his regular duties in the quarry. He challenged the order of termination before the Tribunal, namely, the first respondent. The Tribunal, on examination of the doctors and other relevant materials, held that the non-employment of the petitioner was not justified and directed second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages from 27th February, 1982 being the date of reference. Aggrieved by the said order, the management has filed the present writ petition on 24th July, 1985. In Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 12466 of 1985 this Court made the interim stay of award absolute on condition that the management pays the petitioner Rs. 15,000 on or before the end of October 1986. The above order was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1118 of 1986 and a Division Bench of this Court directed the management to pay the said amount within three weeks. It is stated that with regard to the request made by the petitioner about the payment of wages as per S. 17b of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Learned Judges observed that he could move by a separate petition. Hence this petition.

(3.) THE said petition was resisted by the second respondent in his counter wherein is state that in view of the order passed by this Court making the order of interim stay absolute on the condition of the management paying a sum of Rs. 15,000 a finality has been reached as far as the interim prayers are concerned. It is further stated that it is not a case of an employee of India Cements Ltd. , being terminated, but it is more case of non-absorption of a workman on medical ground as per the terms of the settlement reached between the parties. According to the second respondent, the petitioner runs a cycle shop of his own keeping 8 or 10 cycles and he earns Rs. 25 to Rs. 30 per day by hiring cycles and undertaking repair works in cycles. As such, he is not entitled to any wages as per the proviso to S. 117-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. That the petitioner was drawing Rs. 475 as on 11th August, 1978 is denied as incorrect. It is further stated that it could be seen from the terms of the settlement that the employees would be getting Rs. 14 per day on the days they work and if the employees are eligible to any wages pending disposal of the writ petition, it could not be more than Rs. 364 a month. Even the backwages, on the basis of the last drawn salary from the date of reference, namely, 27th February, 1982, till 9th March, 1989, when they filed the counter affidavit, come approximately to Rs. 30,940 out of which more than 50 per cent has already been paid. According to the second respondent, it is open to this Court either to grant the claim under S, 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act or reject the claim depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and having regard to the facts and circumstances of this particular case, the petition is liable to be dismissed.