PREM ROOP KALLA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case which brings to the fore apathy of the petitioner driven from pillar to post by two authorities who have been statutorily entrusted with the task of discharging the obligations for execution of awards granting monetary reliefs under the Industrial Disputes Act and the employer, the University of Jodhpur (Now JNV University), another instrumentality of the State is making merry by not implementing the Award for making of payment even after expiry of a decade from the date of the award as the facts to be stated hereinafter shall presently reveal.

(2.) THE petitioner an employee of the respondent employer, the Jodhpur University, raised the dispute about termination of his services with effect from 1. 6. 86. THE said dispute was made subject matter of a reference made to the Labour Court, Jodhpur u/s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the said reference, Labour Dispute No. 59 of 1988, an Award was made on 12. 12. 1990 declaring the retrenchment of the petitioner to be invalid and directing the employer University to reinstate the petitioner with immediate effect and the University was further directed to make payment of arrears of wages w. e. f. the date of termination of the service to the date of retrenchment. THE petitioner was reinstated by the respondent University on 4. 6. 92 and all wages due w. e. f. the date of reinstatement have been paid to the petitioner. However, according to the claim of the petitioner no arrears were paid in terms of the Award from the date of termination dated 1. 6. 86 to the date of reinstatement 4. 6. 92. This fact is not in dispute. THE petitioner, in the first instance, moved an application u/s. 33c (2) for determination of the money due under the Award to which he was entitled before the Labour Court, Jodhpur. THE Labour Court by its order dated 26. 12. 1991 held that since there is no dispute about quantification of the benefits, and finding the money due under the award is merely a matter of computation, application was not maintainable under Sec. 33c (2) and the workman has his only remedy to move the State Govt. u/s. 33c (1 ). Advised by the Labour Court, the petitioner moved the State Govt. for issuing certificate for recovering due from the employer under the Award. THE application was rejected by a cryptic order dated 7. 8. 96 (Annex. P/10 ). Though the order states that the detailed order is available on the file, neither the same has been served on the petitioner nor a copy of that has been given to him nor in reply to the writ petition any such order has been placed on record. THE petitioner again moved an application for recovering the sum due under the Award which too was dismissed on 10. 12. 97 by referring to the earlier order dated 7. 8. 96 that the application is not maintainable. This denial of lending assistance in executing the Award by the State as well as the Labour Court has led the petitioner to file this petition. He has challenged the orders Annex. P/10 and P/11 dated 7. 8. 96 and 10. 12. 97 respectively made by the State Govt. rejecting his application u/s. 33c (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Annex. P/3 the rejection of his application u/s. 33c (2) for determining the amount due under the Award for the purposes of its recovery vide its order dated 10. 12. 90. THE stand taken by the University employer is that since the petitioner has been reinstated and he has been paid all his due w. e. f. the date of reinstatement and he has joined without protest they have thought it not necessary to make payment of the arrears by assuming that the petitioner has no grievance in respect thereof. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent University, requests the Court to deem it a case of waiver of claim to arrears by the petitioner.

(3.) THE provisions so included in 1956 still did not include under Sub-Sec. (2) the quantification of money to which a workman is entitled but was confined to the computation in terms of money the value of benefit to which a workman is entitled and prior to the provision in the present form came into existence, Sec. 33c as it existed and considered by the Supreme Court on two occasions, read as under: " S. 33c. Recovery of money due from an employer - (1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or, under the provisions of Chapter V-A, the workman may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as arrear of land revenue. " (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the amount at which such benefit should be computed may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be determined by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the amount so determined may be recovered as provided for in sub-sec. (1 ). (3) For the purpose of computing the money value of a benefit, the Labour Court may, if it so thinks fit, appoint a Commissioner who shall, after taking such evidence as may be necessary, submit a report to the Labour Court and the Labour Court shall determine the amount after considering the report of the Commissioner and other circumstances of the case. "