KORAPUT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. Vs. UMAKANTA RATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-management has challenged order dtd. 9/9/2021 passed by the labour Court on application made under Sec. 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The application was made by opposite party no.1, who when making the application had retired. His claim before the labour Court was for computation of his benefit of leave encashment, the leave accrued to him during subsistence of his suspension. Petitioner-management contended before us, a retired workman cannot maintain a claim under Sec. 33-C(2). Without prejudice secondly, the workman stood suspended for a period during his service. Punishment order was made and upon his retirement, pursuant to the order of punishment there was calculation made of his retirement benefits and disbursed. The workman got leave encashment. No leave accrued to him during his period of suspension. Hence, the claim was disputed. The dispute being undetermined, the labour Court committed illegality in making impugned order directing payment of 80 days leave encashment.

(2.) Mr. Sahoo, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and relies on two judgments of this Court respectively in support of each of his contentions.

(3.) Mr. Tripathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.1 (workman). He relies on judgment dtd. 14/8/2013 of the Supreme Court reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210 (State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava). Paragraph 16 is reproduced below.