SAYAL MAL BHANSALI Vs. JUDGE LABOUR COURTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the denial of interest by the Labour Court in proceedings under Section 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is justified or not is the short question that arises for determination in this petition.

(2.) THE petitioner was an employee of respondent No. 2. It is stated by him that on account of ill health he could not attend his duties from July 11, 1984 to October 31, 1984 and on November 1, 1984 when he reported for duty he was not permitted to resume work and he was informed that his name had been struck off with effect from July 1, 1984. The petitioner raised a dispute and moved an application before the Conciliation Officer. No settlement could be arrived at. The Government refused to refer the dispute forcing the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by way of writ petition and vide order dated November 20, 1990 a direction was issued to the Government to refer the disputes to the Tribunal. It is stated that the reference is pending before the Labour Court. A notice dated November 5, 1984 (Annex. 1) is stated to have been served by the petitioner asking the respondent No. 2 to clear the amount due and after the decision of the writ petition a second notice (Anncx. 2) was sent which is staled to have gone unnoticed. Even the undisputed amount was not remitted. An application under Section 33 (c) (2) of the aforesaid Act was moved before the Labour Court for the recovery of the undisputed amount, earned leave, bonus, which is said to have been illegally retained by the respondent No. 2, on this amount a further claim of interest was also made. Admittedly the undisputed amount of Rs. 3151. 35 was offered and accepted in the Court on March 12, 1992. The learned Labour Court, however, disallowed the interest vide order dated April 9, 1992 (Annex. 3) and it is this order dated April 9, 1992 (Annex. 3) which is under challenge.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order (Annex. 3) reveals that in view of the admitted amount having been paid and accepted in the court, interest on this amount cannot be -allowed since there was no provision to that effect under the Act for granting the same. The claim was, thus, declined.