MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Labour Court, Amritsar, dated April 29, 1982, whereby on an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"), respondent No. 2 was found entitled to a sum of Rs. 19. 129. 70 by way of his wages.

(2.) THE respondent, Samuel Sen, filed a civil suit for declaration that the entire procedure adopted by the defendant-Municipal Committee beginning with the suspension and culminating in his dismissal on October 16, 1967, was wrong, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, unconstitutional and inoperative, and that the plaintiff was entitled to consequential relief by way of reinstatement relating back to the date of his illegal suspension and full back wages with due increments and promotions. The said suit was contested by the Municipal Committee. Ultimately, the trial court decreed the said suit, vide judgment dated January 28, 1974. The operative part of the judgment reads as under: "from the ratio of the aforesaid authorities it is now clear that the plaintiff can only seek that the order of dismissal dated October 16, 1987, is unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, unconstitutional and inoperative but he cannot claim any further relief by way of reinstatement relating back to the date of his illegal suspension and full back wages with usual increments and promotions. With these observations, I only pass a declaratory decree to the effect that the entire procedure adopted by the defendant beginning with the suspension of the plaintiff and culminating in his final dismissal on October 16, 1967, is wrong, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory, void and inoperative and having no force of law. The decree sheet be prepared accordingly with costs".

(3.) IN appeal filed by the Municipal Committee, the said decree of the trial Court was maintained. On the basis of the said decree of the civil court the plaintiff, Samuel Sen, moved an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act for claiming his wages from the date of the passing of the dismissal order till the date of passing of the decree by the civil court. The said application was contested on behalf of the Municipal Committee on the plea that no such application was maintainable for the said amount. According to the Municipal Committee, the decree was not for reinstatement and, therefore, he could not be deemed to have been reinstated. As such, he could not claim his back wages, etc. Plea was also taken that the application was barred by the principles of res judicata and the Labour Court was not competent to try the application. Consequently, issues were framed and parties were allowed to lead evidence. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the effect of the setting aside the order of dismissal in the case of employees of the statutory corporations would mean that the workman concerned would be deemed to be in service. Thus, the objections raised on behalf of the Municipal Committee as to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and that the application was barred by the principles of res judicata were not sustainable. According to the Labour Court, the plaintiff was found entitled to a sum of Rs. 19,129. 70 by way of his wages from the date of the dismissal order till the date of the passing of the decree by the civil court.