FACTORY MANAGER UDAIPUR MINERAL Vs. M P DAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 30th September, 1977, passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority'), in case No. 219 of 1976, arising out of an application filed by Shri M.P. Dave, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent workman'), under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE respondent -workman was employed as a Mechanic with M/s Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Private Limited, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the employer'). By order dated 26th July, 1966 the employer terminated the services of the respondent -workmen. The aforesaid order of termination of the services of the respondent -workman gave rise to an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court and the Labour Court in its Award dated 7th February, 1970 held that the services of the respondent -workman had been terminated in contravention of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but refused to order reinstatement of the reap indent workman in service and directed the employer to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/ - by way of compensation to the respondent workman. The aforesaid Award was challenged by the respondent -workman before this Court In Civil Writ Petition No. 1768 of 1970 and a learned Single Judge of this Court, by his judgment dated 9th July, 1971, set aside that part of the award, whereby the Labour Court had refused to order reinstatement of the respondent -workman in service, and the learned Single Judge held that the respondent -workman is entitled to be reinstated in service and he directed the Labour Court to amend his award accordingly. The employer filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge and the said special appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, by its judgment dated 14th March, 1975, which is reported in 1975 RLW 131. Thereafter the Labour Court passed the order dated 27th February, 1976, whereby it amended its award and directed that the respondent -workman was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and to recover his full wages for the period between the date of retrenchment from July 26, 1966 and the date of his reinstatement. It appears that the employer did not pay the wages to the respondent -workman in accordance with the amended Award dated 27th February, 1976 and on 4th October, 1976, the respondent -workman filed on application before the Authority under Section 16(2) of the Act for the recovery of Rs. 90,635.40 on account of wages for the period from 27th July, 1966 to 30th May, 1976, and also for leave pay, bonus, house -rent allowance etc. The aforesaid application of the respondent workman was contested by the employer, who filed a reply on 27th July 1976, wherein it raised certain pleas with regard to the jurisdiction of the Authority to entertain the said application as well as the plea that the Bald application was barred by limitation. The Authority, by its order dated 30th September, 1977 rejected the aforesaid pleas raised by the petitioner with regard to the jurisdiction of the Authority to entertain the application of the respondent -workman and also with regard to the said application being barred by limitation. The Authority held that the respondent workman is entitled to payment of rupees 66,000/ - on account of wages due to him. The Authority rejected the claim of the respondent workman with regard to bonus, leave -pay etc. The Authority, by its order dated 30th September, 1977 directed the employer to pay a sum of Rs. 66,000/ - to the respondent workman. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Authority, the petitioner has filed this writ petition wherein It has prayed that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued to quash the order dated 30th September, 1977 passed by the Authority.

(3.) AS regards the merits of the case, the first contention urged by Shri Parekh the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is his application under Section 15(2) of the Act, the respondent workman was seeking to enforce the order of the Labour Court and that the remedy, which was available to the respondent -workman, was to move the Labour Court under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and that the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 15(2) of the Act before the Authority, was no maintainable. In support of his aforesaid submission, Shri Parekh has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Payment of Wages Inspector v. Suraj Mal Mehta: : (1969)ILLJ762SC