EXECUTIVE ENGINEER/STORES Vs. RINKU RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is challenging the order dated 03.10.2019 and the order dated 13.12.2019, whereby, in the proceeding of the execution of the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat (for short 'the Labour Court'), the Court below has ordered payment of revised wages to the respondent; pursuant to his reinstatement, and has further ordered that such payment be made from the date of Award passed by the Labour Court.

(2.) The main facts, as involved in this case, are that the respondent-workman was engaged by the petitioner-management as a Data Entry Operator in the month of November, 2009. Thereafter the service of the respondent-workman was terminated w.e.f. 11.10.2011. The respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute. The petitioner-management disputed itss liability to reinstate the respondent-workman or to make any payment of wages or compensation to him by submitting that his service was never terminated, rather the contract of the respondent-workman was not extended any further. Ultimately, the Labour Court passed an Award in favour of the respondent-workman; awarding therein the reinstatement of the respondent-workman in service with continuity of service and 50% of back wages from the date of filing of the demand notice. Thereafter, statedly, the respondent-workman was reinstated by the petitioner-management w.e.f. 14.03.2017. He has been continuing as such since then. However, the respondent-workman was being paid by the petitioner-management only the amount of wages which he was last drawing prior to termination of his service. The respondent-workman preferred an execution petition before the Executing Court at Panipat seeking the revised wages from the petitioner-management. The said application was allowed by the Executing Court and the respondent-workman was held entitled to the revised pay scale from the date of Award dated 16.08.2016. Further direction was issued to place on record the demand draft in favour of the respondent-workman for the amount of arrears arising from that date on account of difference between the actual wages paid to him post reinstatement and the revised wages to which the respondent-workman was held entitled. It is against this order; that the present petition has been preferred.

(3.) Arguing the case, learned counsel for he petitioner has submitted that the Award in favour of the respondent-workman had granted him the benefit of reinstatement with payment of 50% of back wages. The petitioner had preferred CWP No.24023 of 2016 before this Court; challenging the said Award. The High Court had granted stay only against the payment of back wages and the part of the Award qua reinstatement was not stayed by the High court. Accordingly, the petitioner reinstated the respondent-workman w.e.f. 14.03.2017. However, as per the mandate of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), the petitioner paid to the respondent-workman an amount equal to the wages last drawn by him at the time of termination of his service. Hence it is submitted that the order passed by the Executing Court is totally illegal and operates against the mandate of Section 17-B of the Act. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Counsel has further submitted that the Executing Court could not have gone beyond the mandate of Section 17-B of the Act while calculating the amount payable to the respondent-workman. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-workman has submitted that the respondent-workman has been put on job by the petitioner-management. The petitioner-management itself has admitted before the Executing Court that the wages for the post of Data Entry Operator, on which the respondent has been reinstated, were revised vide Notification dated 12.08.2013. As per the said Notification, a person working on the post of Data Entry Operator is now being paid an amount of Rs. 13,500/- per month. Since the respondent-workman is actually performing the duties of post of Data Entry Operator, therefore, he is entitled to the salary of the post, the duty of which the respondent is performing. Hence, it is submitted that the Executing Court has rightly issued the direction to the petitioner-management to grant the revised wages to the respondent. There is no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Executing Court.