RAJARAM DIPOO KHATIK Vs. SHRIRAM MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court dated 12th May, 1993 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under sections 78 and 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") on the ground that the approach of the petitioner was not made within the period of limitation prescribed under the said Act and Rules framed thereunder.

(2.) THE petitioner was a permanent workman since 1961 with respondent No. 1 mill. After the textile strike in the year 1982, the petitioner was not given any work for some period of time. The petitioner reported for duty almost every day, but he was not permitted to work in the mill. On 19th June, 1984, the petitioner called upon respondent No. 1 mill to give him work. He informed respondent No. 1 by the said letter that it was because of the dangerous situation and closure of mills during the strike period that he could not attend work. He also mentioned that he was given work on 7th January, 1983 and thereafter was refused work from 8th January, 1983 to 22nd February, 1983. Again, he was provided work on 23rd February, 1983 and 16th May, 1983. The petitioner did not receive any reply to this letter and, therefore, sent another letter on 16th July, 1984 reiterating his case. As respondent No. 1 mill took no steps to employ the petitioner, he sent an approach notice under section 42 (4) of the said Act on 1st August, 1984. The mill did not bother to reply to this letter either. The petitioner, therefore, had no option but to file an application under sections 78 and 79 of the said Act on 27th August, 1985 claiming reinstatement and continuity of service and full back wages before the Labour Court. Respondent No. 1 mill in its written statement contended that the application of the petitioner was barred by limitation and that despite an appeal issued to the striking workers in the newspapers to resume duties by 15th November, 1984, the petitioner had failed to do so. The mill also contended that as the petitioner did not report for duty, the mill had no option but to terminate his service after issuing a charge-sheet and holding an inquiry against him.

(3.) EVIDENCE was led before the Labour Court by both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 1 mill. In the meantime, the petitioner was reinstated on 14th January, 1987. However, the payment of back wages was to be decided by the Labour Court. The Labour Court framed two issues, namely, (i) whether the application of the petitioner was within the period of limitation; and (ii) whether he was entitled to back wages. On the question of limitation, the Labour Court held that the petitioner was not aware of the date of termination and, therefore, the question of limitation would not arise. On the basis of the evidence led before it, the Labour Court was of the view that the approach notice had been sent within the period of limitation and that the application under sections 78 and 79 of the said Act was maintainable. The Labour Court, however, directed the mill to pay 30% of the last drawn wages as back wages to the petitioner from the date of his dismissal till 14th January, 1987 i. e. the date on which he was reinstated.