GULAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-workman was employed as a tractor driver by the Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak on 10.1.1971 and his services were terminated in June, 1977. This termination gave rise to an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Rohtak. The reference was answered in favour of the petitioner and against the management holding that the workman was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The workman joined service in pursuance of the award but claims that he has not been paid his back wages. He filed an application under sub-section 2 of the Section 33C of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) before the Labour Court claiming back wages from the employer. This application was dismissed for non-prosecution on September 20, 1985. Thereafter, the workman filed an application before the State Government under sub-section (1) of Section 33C of the Act claiming a sum of Rs. 26033/- as his back wages for' the period from 18.6.1977 to 30.3.1981. This application was rejected by the Labour Commissioner Haryana exercising the powers of the State Government as per his order dated 10.3.1987 (Annexure P-16 with the writ petition). The petitioner was informed that his application was dismissed without mentioning any reason therein. It is this communication that has been impugned in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) After hearing counsel for the parties, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. When the Labour Court had directed the reinstatement of the workman with full back wages, it is no understandable as to why the Labour Commissioner dismissed the application without assigning any reason. Even in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, no justification has been shown as to why the amount is not payable. It is not the case of the Municipal Committee that the amount has already been paid.

(3.) Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.3.1987 passed by the Labour Commissioner, Haryana, (Annexure P-16 with the writ petition) quashed. The Labour Commissioner is directed to decide the application on merits after hearing the workman and the Municipal Committee Bahadurgarh and determine the amount that is due to the workman in terms of the award dated 29.1.1980 (Annexure P-1 with the petition). The petitioner will also be entitled to interest on that amount at the rate of 12% per annum. The Labour Commissioner after determining the amount will then proceed to have the same recovered from the Municipal Committee so that the award of the Labour Court stands complied with. There is no order as to costs.