USHA BAJAJ Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda granted reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages to the petitioner - workman in Reference 208 of 1997 by award dated 12th April, 2001. The workman was directed to report for duty after 30 days of publication of the award. The petitioner submitted her joining report on 17th August, 2001 within the time fixed by the Labour Court. Since the respondent -Board was in litigation against the award before this Court, the award was not implemented and the petitioner was not permitted to join her duty. Ultimately, after the dismissal of the writ petition she was reinstated to service on 16th September, 2002 after delay awaiting result of writ proceedings. She has been working in the respondent -Board since then. In order to satisfy the award, the respondent -Board paid 50% of the arrears of backwages for the period 23rd July, 1996 [the date of termination which termination stood nullified by the award] to 16th September, 2002 [the date of being allowed to join] at the rate of minimum wages i.e. Rs. 52.95 paise per day as was paid on the date of termination. Since the petitioner was on daily wages, an amount of Rs. 48,996/ - was accordingly paid to her which the petitioner says is short payment.

(2.) IT may be mentioned that claims shown in the above Item Nos. 9 to 11 stand paid in satisfaction and discharge of monetary benefits due under the award. Ultimately, a balance sum of Rs. 29,275.98 became due and payable to the petitioner and compliant with the directions of the award. But the Labour Court in the impugned order has sadly neither noticed nor dealt with the claims shown at Items Nos. 1 to 8 and to that extent the award is sub silentio suffers from material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction vested in it, by lack of decision making on the point pressed.

(3.) I have heard Ms. Ishrat Pannu, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Behl appearing for the respondent Board and have perused the record of the case found in the writ papers with their able assistance.