BHAGWAT BHIMRAO SOMWANSHI Vs. CHIEF OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - An order of the Industrial Court dated 20th September, 2003 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune in Miscellaneous Application (ULP) No. 21 of 2002 filed under Section 50 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 has been challenged by this petition. The petitioner was working as a Peon with the first respondent till his services were terminated on 7th June, 1986. A Complaint was filed by the petitioner being Complaint (ULP) No.142 of 1986 before the Labour Court claiming reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The petitioner then filed Complaint (ULP) No. 319 of 2000 before the Industrial Court claiming difference in salary, wages and further dues as per the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission. This Complaint was allowed on 6th April, 2002. Since there was an error in the order, it was corrected on 17th August, 2002 As the amounts payable under this Complaint i.e., Complaint (ULP) No. 319 of 2000 were not paid to the petitioner, an application under Section 50 of the Act was preferred by him. The Industrial Court has dismissed the application only on the ground that the Court which is an executing Court cannot determine the amount and cannot find out whether dues were payable. The Industrial Court relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of V. Ramnathan v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., 2002 I CLR 231, to take the view that he could not determine the amount payable as the question of entitlement of arrears would have to be considered by him.

(2.) THE Industrial Court has totally misdirected itself while coming to the said conclusion. The question of entitlement was not required to be considered by him in an application under Section 50 of the Act. The entitlement had already been decided in Complaint (ULP) No.319 of 2000. That being so, the Industrial Court had merely to compute and decide whether the arithmetical calculations furnished by the petitioner were correct. In the event the Industrial Court was satisfied that this was so, the Industrial Court was required to issue a recovery certificate.

(3.) MR . Topkar, learned Advocate for the first Respondent Council, vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.