STATE OF U P Vs. LABOUR COURT I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners-State have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of Labour Court (1st), U.P., Meerut dated August 23, 1995, passed in Misc. Case No. 11 of 1993, whereby an application filed by the respondent-workman under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been allowed and a direction has been issued that the respondent No. 2 be paid salary w. e.f. July 4, 1987 to July, 1993 and also the bonus for the year 1987 to 1992, which comes to total of Rs. 1,55,821.00.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the services of respondent No. 2 were terminated against which he has filed a writ petition before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15172 of 1987, which is still pending and in which interim order has been passed staying the order terminating the services of the concerned workman. The workman has come up with an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'Act', that the quantum of salary has not been disputed. It is also not disputed that after passing of the interim order from the date of termination of service, the concerned workman is entitled for the salary and other allowances, which admittedly, has not been paid to him. Before the Labour Court, petitioners have stated that so long as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15172 of 1987 is not finally disposed of, the liability to pay, if any, to the concerned workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Act cannot be taken by the petitioners and no direction can be issued by the Labour Court for the payment of the amount claimed by the workman concerned.

(3.) It is not disputed that the amount of salary has been claimed and from the date of passing of the interim order, he is not getting any amount of salary and bonus from 1987 to1993. It is also not disputed that this is total quantum of amount, which is liable to be paid. The only argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that during the pendency of the writ petition on the strength of stay order, this amount cannot be paid under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Assn. C.S.I. Synod Secretariat, Madras, AIR 1992 SC 1439 : 1992 (3) SCC 1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pleased to define the effect of passing of the interim order. According to the judgment, the effect of passing of the interim order is that the order impugned is not maintained from the record discharging only inflictive and cannot be executive so long as the interim order is in operation. In view of the Apex Court's judgment, the case of the concerned workman is strengthened that there is no dispute with regard to the quantum of salary and the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act has been rightly allowed by the Labour Court. The other case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners' is Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand and another, AIR 1978 SC 995 : 1978 (2) SCC 144 : 1978-II-LLJ- 1 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold mat the proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Act are in the nature of execution of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to emphasise that by observing that the proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Act being the proceedings in the nature of execution proceedings, this Court should treat it to be execution proceedings and unless there is a positive order, no relief could be granted to the concerned workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Act.