SUMAN NIVRUTTI TAKALE Vs. AMARCHAND RAMCHANDRA PATWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE checkered history of the present very small dispute of a small woman reflects abuse of the process of law. The petitioner appears to have claimed a difference in wages actually paid to her and legally payable under the Minimum Wages Act. By an order in Application IDA/ulp No. 320 of 1978, the Labour Court on 13-3-1981 directed the present respondent No. 1 employer to pay a sum of Rs. 3,552/- to the petitioner. The respondent employer carried the said order by filing writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 1351 of 1981. On 3-4-1990, the said petition was rejected. It also appears that on 16-12-1992, the Industrial Court, Pune passed an order in Complaint ULP No. 574 of 1991 directing the respondent employer to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,552/- with interest at the rate of 12% p. a. from 13-3-1981 till its actual payment. In the meanwhile, it appears that the petitioners employment came to be terminated and the petitioner succeeded in her adjudication for reinstatement before the Labour Court. The said award of the Labour Court appears to have been challenged in this Court in writ petition being Writ Petition No. 5188 of 1985 which is said to be pending.

(2.) ON 30th March, 1993, the petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Application ULP No. 3/93 under section 50 of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act for recovery of the amount under which order of the Industrial Court, Pune dated 16-12-1992. The said step resorted to by the petitioner appears to have prompted the respondent No. 1 employer to file a review application (ULP 7 of 1993) praying for setting aside the aforesaid order of interest. In that application, the respondent No. 1 employer had expressed his willingness to pay the entire amount i. e. Rs. 3,552/- in three instalments and that to deposit the same in the Court till 20th January, 1994. Incidently he had shown his willingness to deposit a sum of Rs. 500/- to prove the bona fides. He also expressed his inability to pay the whole amount with interest as his manufacturing activity was discontinued and that he was a poor person. The petitioner had filed her say on the said application and had brought to the notice of the Court that the original claim was of 1978 and she left it to the Court for appropriate orders in the "wider interest of justice". The learned trial Judge passed the impugned orders (three sentences) which is reproduced below:-"heard both sides. The order of interest stands set aside. Principal amount be paid immediately. " the petitioner workman has challenged the said order by filing the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order is passed in a review application. There is not even a single reason recorded why he was reviewing his earlier order of award of interest on the principal amounts payable by the employer from 1978 to the petitioner workman. It is not that the award of interest was lightly passed by the learned member of the Industrial Court. Though, however, it appears from the order that he has cancelled the order of award of interest in a very casual manner in one sentence without giving any reasons for doing so. If he was satisfied that his order of award of interest was illegal or erroneous, he ought to have given reasons for such findings. From the order nothing is clear except the fact that the order is passed in a very casual manner. It appears that the learned member lost sight of the fact that he was required to pass a judicial and reasoned order in the review application which was before him. If the employer is liable to pay the minimum wages and direction to pay the minimum wages is given by the appropriate Court and the said order further having been confirmed by this Court, the employee cannot be denied the benefits of such an order. Such a practice of denying interest on the judicially determined amount would certainly encourage the dishonest employers who avoid to pay even the legitimate dues of the employees. The claim of the petitioner was for statutorily and judicially determined minimum wages. She was not asking for any charity or bounty. Her claim withstood the test of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In spite of the same, the respondent employer has successfully dodged to pay the said amount. To condone interest on such an amount would be paying premium on the dishonesty of the respondent employer who appears to have successfully dodged even to obey the Courts order.

(3.) IN the aforesaid circumstances, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to interest on her statutorily payable and judicially determined amount of minimum wages with interest from the date of the order of the Labour Court dated 13-3-1981 when the petitioners claim was finally determined and crystalised and when the respondent employer became finally liable to pay the said amount. The impugned order dated 5-11-1993 is hereby quashed and set aside and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to recover the entire amount of Rs. 3,552/- with interest at 12% p. a. from 13-3-1981. It is further clarified that if in the meanwhile any amount is paid by the respondent employer, the same would be adjusted and the amount of interest would be calculated accordingly.