SUDHIR JANARDHAN DESAI Vs. HYPHOSPHITE AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these Writ Petitions are being heard together as the parties involved are common and the facts involved in both the matters are common.

(2.) THE Petitioner workman was employed in a partnership firm, namely, Hyphosphite and Co. since february 1973. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the Partners of that firm. The services of the workman came to be terminated oh 10th June 1979 whereupon he raised a dispute and the matter was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court. As the firm and its partners did not remain present, though served, the Labour Court passed an ex-parte Award on 29th January 1987 directing the firm and its partners to reinstate the workman with-continuity of service and back wages. The firm and its partners refused to comply with the Award and. therefore, the workmen filed an application under section 33c (2 ). of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")for recovery of the dues payable under the Award. This application was granted' again by an ex-parte order on 25th April 1991. The partners then filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order passed by the Labour Court under section 33c (2) of the Act. This application came to be dismissed on 20th February 1993 and a review was filed by the firm and its partners. The workman had contended in reply to the review that the Labour Court acting under Section 33c (2) had no power 6 review its own order. The review application was partly allowed by the labour Court on 12th July 1993. The Labour Court negatived the contention of the workman and held that the review was maintainable and directed the Recovery officer to recover all the amounts as quantified under its order dated 25th April 1991 except bonus and leave Wages. Aggrieved by this order, the firm and its partners filed Writ Petition No. 2829 of 1993. The said writ Petition was also directed against the initial order passed by the Labour Court on 25th April 1991 in respect of the recovery of dues payable as also the order dismissing the application for setting aside the ex-parte order of the Labour Court passed under Section 33c (2) of the Act. This Writ Petition was dismissed. Against the dismissal of the Writ Petition, Letter patent Appeal was moved before this Court which also met with the same fate.

(3.) WRIT Petition No. 343. 2 of 1993 is directed against the order of the Labour Court, Thane dated 12th july 1993 allowing the review application by and reviewing its own order of 25th April 1991. While admitting this Writ Petition, this Court granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Petition by which the Recovery Officer, who is Respondent No. 4 to this Petition, to recover the entire amount awarded to the -Petitioner and to deposit in this Court the amount of bonus and leave wages. This amount was then recovered.