SANKAR DAS Vs. PRADEEP PHOSPHATES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 12.05.2011 passed in W.A. No. 259 of 2011 arising out of W.P.(c) No. 22852 of 2010. Writ Appeal No.259 of 2011 was preferred by opposite party-Management challenging the judgment dated 4.3.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(c) No. 22852 of 2010 quashing the order dated 18.9.2010 of the Labour Court,Bhubaneswar in I.D. Misc. Case No. 58 of 2008 and directing the opposite party no.1-Management to pay the entire amount of claim under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act., 1948. The said Writ Appeal No. 259 of 2011 filed by the opposite party no.1-Management was dismissed on 12.5.2011 with the following observations:

(2.) Challenging the judgment of this Court dated 12.5.2011 passed in the above writ appeal, the appellant-Management preferred SLP (C) No.16367 of 2011 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said SLP was dismissed on 11.7.2011 having no ground for interference by the Supreme Court.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner submitted that at the time of submission of the application under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act before the learned Labour Court a calculation sheet was appended to Annexure in Form-T-3 wherein the wages and other dues were mentioned as per the old scale of pay that was received by the petitioner-workman at the time of dismissal. It was submitted that as per the decision of the opp. party-Management though the salary of the workman was revised, the petitioner/workman was not aware of the same during pendency of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge and the writ appeal which was disposed of on 12.5.2011. A Circular was issued on 30.04.2009 for revision of wages of unionised employees of Paradeep Phosphate Ltd. In the said Circular, it has been specifically mentioned that consequent upon signing of the memorandum of settlement between Paradeep Phosphates Employees Union (PPEU) and PPSA on 24.03.2008, the Management has revised the wages and prerequisite/allowances of non- executive employees from 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2011. Since the said Circular was not within the knowledge of the petitioner-workman no prayer could be made inadvertently by him praying for direction to opposite no.1-Management to pay his dues as per revised pay structure. The said mistake was neither deliberate nor wilful, rather bona fide. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner-workman will suffer and he will be prejudiced if the review petition is not allowed. Therefore, learned counsel prayed for review of the judgment dated 12.5.2011 passed in W.A. No. 259 of 2011 to the extent that the Management has to pay the salary of the workman as per the revised pay structure.