BIM SAIN PRABHAKAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN wake of firm finding recorded by the Labour Court that appellant -workman had been representing the workmen of various companies before the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals since 1978, based upon the statement of none other than the appellant himself, while holding that he had been dismissed from service on October 5, 1998 in contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it granted 50% backwages, learned single Judge, on challenge to the award, rendered by the Labour Court, to the limited extent of denial of 50% backwages, did not find any merit in the writ petition and, thus, dismissed the same. The only question that has been raised before us in this Letters Patent Appeal filed by the workman -appellant under Clause X of the Letters Patent is as to whether, during his so called period of idleness, appellant was not gainfully employed and, thus, entitled to full back wages. Before we may, however, answer the only question that has been raised in the present appeal, as noted above, it will be useful to give backdrop of the events culminating into filing of the present appeal.

(2.) AN industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in regard to payment of bonus for the year 1984 -85 was pending before the Tribunal in reference No. 7 of 1988. During the currency of this dispute, the respondent -Management dismissed the workmen from service without obtaining permission as envisaged under the Act, thus, constraining the appellant to file an application under Section 33A of the Act to the Labour Court before which the industrial dispute was pending. The Labour Court treating the complaint as a dispute referred to it under Section 10 of the Act, rendered its award on August 5, 1993 holding that the dismissal of the workman from service was illegal and wrong. The order of dismissal was, thus, set aside directing the respondent -management to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and other consequential benefits but with 50% back wages which were to be paid in two equal monthly instalments within a period of three months from the date of award, failing which the workman was to be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of award till the date of actual payment. Constrained the respondent -Management challenged the award aforesaid by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 13358 of 1993. Meanwhile, since the respondent -Management did not implement the award, the workman moved the State Government under Section 33C(1) of the said Act claiming recovery of money due from the management under the Award. The Labour Commissioner, Haryana, exercising the powers of the State Government, vide order dated March 28, 1994/April 12, 1994 issued recovery certificate for Rs. 71,638.55 plus interest @ 12%. This recovery certificate was challenged by the respondent -Management by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 16522 of 1994, appellant, as mentioned above, also challenged the award by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 15834 of 1993 to the limited extent, i.e., non -grant of full back wages. Both writs, i.e., one filed by the respondent -Management and the other filed by the appellant, came up for decision before the learned single Judge, who did not find any merit in either of the writ petitions and dismissed the same vide order dated May 29, 1995. We are not concerned with the writ petitions filed by the respondent -management which have assumed finality by now.

(3.) ON the basis of the statement of appellant, as noted above, learned Labour Court observed as under : - 'It has come in the statement of Shri B. S. Prabhakar, WW1 that he has been appearing as A.R. of workmen in Labour Court/Industrial Tribunals since 1978 on behalf of the workers of various companies. In this way, it is admitted by the workman that he is gainfully representing the workmen in Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. Keeping in view these factors, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to award 50% back wages to the workman payable in two equal monthly instalments and these 50% back wages will be payable from October 5, 1988, the date of dismissal till date.'