MAHARASHTRA RASHTRA BHASHA SABHA Vs. S R PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution impugns the judgment and order dated 7/5/2004 rendered by the learned Judge of the Labour Court at Pune thereby allowing Application (IDA) No.41 of 1993 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the I.D. Act"). By the said order the petitioner - Sabha has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,72,354/- towards the legal dues accrued to the respondent ' employee for the period from 1979-80 to 1992-93 by way of salary, bonus, PF contribution and leave encashment etc. The respondent had stated that he was not paid his salary prior to the termination of his service on 1/6/1984 and the said termination was illegal which he challenged in Complaint (ULP) No. 43 of 1984. The 2nd Labour Court at Pune was pleased to allow the said complaint on 18/11/1985 and he was directed to be reinstated and to pay full backwages from 1/6/1984. Consequently he was reinstated and paid the backwages. He was on duty till the end of December 1985 but from January 1986 he was not allowed to report for duty and was not paid salary from January 1986. He further stated that on 8/7/1991 the Industrial Tribunal passed an award on the charter of demands and as per the said award passed in Reference (IT) No.584 and Reference (IT) No.20 of 1982, he was not given any additional benefits. This application was filed on or about 5/7/1993 and the respondent claimed the following recoveries:

(2.) THE petitioner - Sabha had appeared before the Labour Court after receiving the notice and opposed the application. It claimed that the applicant did not report to duty from January 1986 onwards and he had himself abandoned the service. He was making all false allegations and was resorting to filing of frivolous cases including criminal complaints. The applicant had examined himself at Exhibit 9 whereas the Sabha had filed the affidavit of Shri Shashikant Joshi as CW 1. Omkar Deshmukh was examined as CW 2 and Vikram Kore was examined as CW 3. It has also come on record that the employer had filed Complaint (ULP) No.616 of 1990 seeking a declaration and injunction against the employee-applicant. The Labour Court held that the evidence of the Sabha did not support its case and on the other hand the applicant was successful in proving that he was not allowed to report for duty. He was not paid the salary or difference in salary and other legal benefits. The Court also noted that the Sabha failed to submit documentary proof like attendance record, muster roll and salary slips etc.

(3.) HOWEVER , for the first time by way of an affidavit submitted in this petition, the applicant - workman has attempted to substantiate his claim on the basis of the award in Reference (IT) No.20/82 and Reference (IT) No.5/84. This attempt to provide the quantification of the claim made for each year ought to have been done before the Labour Court while the applicant was in the witness box or any other witness from either of the side was in the witness box. It was necessary for the Labour Court to refer to the awards passed and record as to how the basic salary, DA, HRA, CCA and Bonus etc. had gone up pursuant to the two awards referred to hereinabove. The Labour Court has mechanically accepted the claim made by the workman and this cannot be allowed. It would be necessary for the applicant to re-enter the witness box and furnish the details of all the monetary claim made from 1979-80 onwards and may be on the basis of the above mentioned awards. To that extent the impugned order suffers from serious infirmities and renders unsustainable.