GULAB DEVI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, JULLUNDUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Workman Paramjit Singh (respondent No. 2 herein) was reinstated in the service of the petitioner-hospital by an award of the Labour Court dated 29.7.1987. This award was published in the Official Gazette dated 30.10.1987. The workman was reinstated in service with full back wages with continuity of service. The workman is said to have tried to join duties but the Management did not permit him to do so. Ultimately, the workman joined his duties on 31.5.1988. An application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) was filed by the workman in the year 1991 claiming interest on arrears of back wages, leave encashment, house rent allowance and certain annual increments. The Labour Court granted the aforesaid application and allowed the payment of the money to the workman as under :-

(2.) The petitioner has confined the challenge to the payment of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum at Rs. 6,803/- and the amount of leave encashment at Rs. 3,445/-. Thus the payment of house rent allowance at Rs. 500/- and the annual increments at Rs. 200/- has been excluded from the challenge. The petitioner's primary contention against the grant of interest on the arrears of wages is based on the plea that no interest was allowed in the award dated 29.7.1987. The Management was simply directed to pay full back wages. Therefore, it was not within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 33-C(2) of the Act to allow any interest on the arrears of wages. The Labour Court could only direct the Management to make the payment as per the award already given by the Court. Section 33- C(2) of the Act permits a workman to approach the Labour Court if he was entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which could be computed in terms of money. If any question arose as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may be decided by the Labour Court. It would be thus clear that the workman could claim any money if he was entitled to do so. No new claim could be made under sub-section (2) of Section 33-C of the Act. As per the contention of the learned counsel for the employer-petitioner, neither any interest was allowed nor any leave encashment benefit was given in the award dated 29.7.1987. The workman could only claim the arrears of wages in terms of the award and the Labour Court under section 33-C(2) of the Act could direct the Management to make the payment within a specified period with a condition that interest shall be payable on the arrears if no payment was made. The Labour Court could not order the payment of interest on the failure of the Management to pay the arrears of wages inasmuch as no time limit was stipulated in the award for the payment of back wages. Leave encashment benefit was also not given in the award

(3.) In Victor Oil Company Limited v. Amarnath Das and others,1961 2 LLJ 113, it was held by the Supreme Court that a workman, who filed an application under section 33-C(2) of the Act for computing the money due to him in accordance with the order of reinstatement made by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, where there was no provision for encashment of leave in the Service Rules, claim for leave salary and compensation for forced unemployment was untenable in view of the claim for full salary for the same period. In the case of the present workman, Paramjit Singh, neither any provision in the service conditions nor any clause in the Standing Orders has been placed so as to indicate that he was entitled to the benefit of leave encashment.