ANDHRA SCIENTIFIC COMPANY Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the management of the Andhra Scientific Company, Masulipatani (hereinafter referred to as the employers), seeking an appropriate writ, particularly one in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 11 October 1963, passed by the presiding officer, labour court, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 30 of 1963. By that order the labour court allowed an application filed by respondent 2 herein, M. Narayanaswami (hereinafter referred to as the employee) represented by the president of the Andhra Scientific Company Employees' Union, Masulipatam, under Section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The material facts may be briefly stated. The employee was employed by the employers as a stenographer at the Madras branch in the year 1944. After he had put in continuous service of fifteen years, he wa3 discharged and his services were terminated by the employers in January 1959, on the ground that he had absented himself from duty without obtaining prior permission. The employee raised an industrial dispute which was espoused bay the Andhra Scientific Company Employees' Union, Masulipatam. That dispute was taken on file by the labour court, Andhra Pradesh at Guntur, as Industrial Dispute No. 3 of 1960, An award was passed by the labour court on 30 March 1960. The operative portion of the award is as follows: In the foregoing it has been concluded that the petitioner was discharged and in an unjustifiable manner by his employers, the respondents. Normal relief to be awarded by this Court in such cases is reinstatement, which can be with or without back-wages. It is, however, clear from the records that the petitioner has behaved in a somewhat irresponsible fashion and should be penalized to a certain extent. I accordingly think it would serve the interests of justice and industrial peace to direct the payment of the back-wages to him from 1 to 15 January 1959 and from 1 January 1960, till the date of his reinstatement. I accordingly direct the employers of the Andhra Scientific Company to reinstate the workman, M. Narayanaswami, on his previous post of a typist with continuity of service but to pay him such wages from 1 to 15 January 1959, and 1 January 1960 till the date of his reinstatement.

(2.) IT will thus be seen that by this award the employee was assured of continuity of service but at the same time was deprived of a portion of his wages from the date of the termination of his services up to the date of his reinstatement, because the labour court found that he should in some measure be penalized for his somewhat irresponsible behaviour towards his employers. Thereafter, the employers filed a writ petition in the High Court against that award (Writ Petition No. 324 of 1960) but that writ petition was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 14 June 1962.

(3.) AFTER dismissal of this writ petition, the employee filed the present application before the labour court under Section 33c (2) of the industrial Disputes Act alleging that the employers had failed to give full and proper effect to the award, in that he had been denied most of the benefits which he was entitled to under the award. In his application, the employee prayed that the labour court should compute the benefits as declared by the award and for payment of a sum of Rs. 3,101. 81 representing arrears of salary, bonus and leave-salary. In requesting the labour court to compute the benefits, the employee's plea was that the said computation should be made on the basis of the scale of salary that would have been payable to him had he continued in service.