CORPORATION BOMBAY Vs. NAMDEO T NALAVADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, a statutory body and its two officers are the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 26th July, 1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in Complaint U. L. P. No. 570 of 1990 filed by the respondent employee under section 28 read with section 30 and Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971 alleging failure on the part of the petitioners to implement the Award of the Labour Court dated 31st July, 1990 granting reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service to the employee with effect from 17th September, 1982.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioners had dismissed the said employee after completing the disciplinary proceedings against him in the charges levelled by the petitioners. It appears that the said order of dismissal was successfully challenged by the said employee by raising an industrial dispute and by getting an Award of reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service in his favour as aforesaid from the Labour Court. It appears that the petitioners have subsequently implemented the Award by reinstating him and by paying him an amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- towards full backwages. As far as that part of the Award is, concerned, there is no grievance in the present petition, nor is their anything to show that the employee was not satisfied with that part of the Award having been implemented by the petitioners. The respondent employee filed the aforesaid complaint before the Industrial Court to demand bonus for the period from 1982 and 1992 and leave wages for the said period and the pairs of uniform to which he was entitled to every year. The employee filed the aforesaid complaint under Item 9 on the basis that he had succeeded in getting reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. The respondent, therefore, became entitled to get all the benefits of continuity of service including leave wages and bonus paid by the petitioners from time to time to all other employees. It was the case of the employee that had he not been wrongfully dismissed, he also would have earned the amount of bonus for that period and also he would have got benefit of the leave under the rules. Since, he was kept out of employment wrongfully and since, he succeeded to get reinstatement with continuity of service, he is entitled to get the benefits of continuity of service.

(3.) THE Industrial Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, held in favour of the employee and declared that the petitioners had engaged in an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act by not paying the amount of bonus to the employee for the period from 1982 to 1992 and also not paying the leave wages for that period. The Industrial Court, however, rejected the demand of the employee for uniforms.