CHAKALI NARAYANAPPA Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the docket order dated 27.06.2012 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, whereby the un-numbered Execution Petition filed by him in I.D. No. 300 of 2005 was returned. He seeks a direction to the said Court to number and entertain the said Execution Petition in accordance with law. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1982 as a JSS Attendant in Nizam Sugars Limited at Hindupur. After the plant and machinery of Nizam Sugars Limited at Hindupur was purchased by M/s. Sri Renuka Sugars Limited, Belgaum, Karnataka, the second respondent, the petitioner's services were terminated by it. Aggrieved thereby, he raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 300 of 2005 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. By its Award dated 14.02.2011, the Labour Court set aside the removal of the petitioner and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service, attendant benefits and 50% back wages.

(2.) Challenging the said Award, the second respondent company filed W.P. No. 15579 of 2011 before this Court. By order dated 10.06.2011 passed in W.P.M.P. No. 18670 of 2011 in W.P. No. 15579 of 2011, a learned Judge of this Court granted interim suspension of the impugned Award, subject to the condition that the second respondent company comply with Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act of 1947) upon the filing of an affidavit by the petitioner that he was not gainfully employed anywhere. The said interim order was confirmed in appeal by Order dated 06.01.2012 in W.A. No. 492 of 2011. The petitioner claims to have filed an affidavit as directed by this Court stating that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere. However, as the second respondent company failed to comply with Section 17B of the Act of 1947, the petitioner filed an Execution Petition before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, seeking execution of the Award dated 14.02.2011 passed in I.D. No. 300 of 2005.

(3.) In the first instance, the E.P. was returned on 10.04.2012 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to how it was maintainable in the light of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 15579 of 2011. Certain other objections were also raised. Having complied with the other objections, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in so far as the maintainability of the E.P. was concerned, the interim suspension granted by this Court was subject to compliance with Section 17B of the Act of 1947 and as the second respondent company had failed to comply with the condition, the E.P. was maintainable. However, the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, again returned the E.P. on 27.06.2012 stating as follows: