SRI GURU GOBIND SINGH COLLEGE, CHANDIGARH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL, SHRI BHARPUR SINGH Vs. THE LABOUR COURT, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH THROUGH ITS PRESIDING OFFICER, MRS. BIMLA GAUTAM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 5.8.1988 passed by the Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh. The claim of workman-respondent No. 2 has been allowed by the Labour Court because his termination order dated 30.4.1988 was set aside in the earlier litigation and he was ordered to be reinstated along with back wages. The management-petitioner has reinstated the workman-respondent No. 2 but had paid him the wages in the unrevised pay scale of Rs. 70-95/- instead of paying the revised pay scale of Rs. 400-600. The Labour Court allowed the application filed by the workman-respondent No. 2 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and has directed the management- petitioner to make payment of Rs. 34063.98 paise. The payment was to be made within a period of two months failing which interest at the rate of 12% per annum was to be paid.

(2.) Learned counsel for the management-petitioner at the outset has pointed out that whatever arrears were due to the workman-respondent No. 2 have been paid by now. It is pertinent to mention that on 15.12.1988 after admission of the writ petition, an order was passed by this Court for depositing the awarded amount with the Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh and the same was to be disbursed to the workman-respondent No. 2 on his furnishing security for refund of the same to the satisfaction of the Labour Court. The aforementioned order was challenged before the Letters Patent Bench and on 23.1.1989 while disposing of the letters patent appeal, it was directed that the management- petitioner is permitted to pay at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month till the entire amount is paid. A photostat copy of the order dated 23.1.1989 is taken on record as Mark 'A'. It is in these circumstances that Mr. Gur Rattan Pal Singh, learned counsel for the management-petitioner has stated that the outstanding amount has been paid to the workman-respondent No. 2 in compliance of the order of the Letters Patent Bench.

(3.) No one has appeared for the workman-respondent No. 2 to controvert the assertions made by Mr. Gur Rattan Pal Singh with regard to payment of wages which is presumed to be correct.