NAND KISHORE Vs. CHIEF OFFICER NAGAR PALIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated November 15, 2002, petitioner filed this writ petition. By the order impugned, application preferred by the applicant for issuance of the Revenue Recovery Certificate was rejected by the Labour Court, Ujjain.

(2.) Necessary facts which are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are as under. Petitioner was appointed as Pump Attendant in the year 1972 by respondent No. 2, M.P. Housing Board. The appointment was in the pay-scale of Rs. 60-120/- at the time of the appointment, which was revised to Rs. 445-635/- on the recommendations of the Choudhary Pay Commission. Petitioner, employed in the housing colony developed by respondent No. 2 as Pump Attendant, was transferred to the Municipal Council, Nagda somewhere in the year 1985. At the time of transfer petitioner was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 646.10 and increment was due in the month of September. Respondent No. 1 although accepted the petitioner as an employee but without any rhyme or reason started paying consolidated salary of Rs. 400/- per month. This compelled the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. After notice respondents although filed their reply but did not adduce any evidence in support of their defence plea. Thus, relying on the evidence adduced by the petitioner, learned Labour Court allowed the application and directed the respondents to pay difference of arrears of salary w. e.f. May 29, 1985 to May 9, 2000. That order was not challenged by the respondents and had thus become final between the parties. Perusal of the order passed by the Labour Court reveals that in the year 1985 petitioner was getting monthly salary of Rs. 646.10 in the pay-scale of Rs. 445-635. On that basis respondents could have calculated the amount payable to the petitioner in compliance of the order passed by the Labour Court. When this was not done, petitioner filed application for issuance of the Revenue Recovery Certificate which was rejected by the Labour Court by the order impugned holding that no amount was quantified.

(3.) In the considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained in law as no sufficient, cogent and valid reasons have been assigned in the order. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The order impugned is quashed and the Labour Court is directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. No order as to costs.