KULSUM BEGUM Vs. KOHINOOR WINDING FACTORY BHOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. THE Labour Court vide award dated May 12, 2004 has held that the workman Kulsum begum's services were wrongly terminated. Reinstatement was directed along with back-wages. However, fact remains that with respect to age of the workman no determination was made by the Labour Court on which date she would attain the age of. superannuation. The award attained finality. For implementation of the award proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 were filed by the workman claiming the salary as per the award w. e. f. January 1, 2000 to June 2004. In the reply filed by the employer the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it was submitted that the workman was employed in 1966, at that time her age was 20 years, she was appointed as Machine Operator. She had served for a period of 3 years, thereafter left the work and was re-employed in the year 1995.

(2.) THE Labour Court vide order (P/1) date july 27, 2007 passed under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has awarded the wages for 39 months from 2000 till March 12, 2004 at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month, a sum of Rs. 78,000/- was ordered to be paid and rest of Rs. 25,0007- has. been ordered to be adjusted in the aforesaid amount. Aggrieved by the order the employer as well as the workman have come in the writ petitions. The employer has filed W. P. No. 9583/2008 whereas the workman has filed W. P. No. 971/2008.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties/ it appears that there is some dispute with respect to age of the workman which has not been determined by the Labour Court while passing the award on March 12, 2004. The age of the workman could not have been determined in the proceedings under Section 33-C (2), is also not in dispute, it has not been determined in the impugned order (P/1) dated July 27, 2007. However, counsel for the workman has fairly stated that the age at least be taken as 20 years in the year 1966, on that basis the workman would have retired on January 1, 2004. For the purpose of proceedings under Section 33-C (2) aforesaid age is also accepted by Shri Anoop Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman. As the removal was ordered on january 1, 2000 the workman would be entitled for wages from January 1, 2000 till December 31, 2003 for a period of 48 months @ Rs. 2,000/- per month which rate has also not been disputed at bar. Consequently, the amount would come to Rs. 96,000/- instead of Rs. 78,000/-worked out by the Labour Court. Consequently, it is ordered that under the award the workman would be entitled for the wages of rs. 96,000/ -. As prayed by Shri Anoop shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman, liberty is given to the workman to agitate the question with respect to the age in a appropriate proceedings, she is free to raise the dispute in that regard. Determination of the age in the instant order would not come in the way as it has been determined only for the purpose of implementation of the award as per the agreement reached between the parties for the purpose of proceedings under Section 33-C (2)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in which age cannot be determined.