MANTRI KHADI MANDIR Vs. LABOUR JUDGE LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LATE Shri Kaniidan was an employee of Khadi Mandir, Bikaner. By order dated 29.09.72, his services were terminated and on an industrial dispute being raised, the matter was referred for consideration by the Labour Court. On 29.01.75, an award was passed by the Labour Court where under the termination of services of Shri Kaniidan was held to be illegal and invalid and the Labour Court directed reinstatement with all back -wages. The award was sent for publication. While passing the award, no interest was directed to be paid. The petitioner challenged the award of the Labour Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1360/76. The said writ petition was ultimately dismissed. Late Shri Kamidan moved an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, to be called the Act' hereinafter) claiming an amount of Rs. 92,065/ - on the ground that inspite of the order passed by the Labour Court and dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court, he was either reinstated nor was paid back -wages. The petitioner entered appearance before the Labour Court and filed reply contending that from 01.10.72 late Shri Karnidan was engaged in a business of commission agent and thus was gainfully employed and, therefore, not entitled for back -wages. It is also contended that he was asked to join the duties on various occasions but he has wilfully refused to join the duties which tantamount to misconduct and as he has not joined the duties of his own he is not entitled to salary for the period he has claimed right from 29.09.72. The Labour Court after appreciation of the evidence on record has arrived at the finding that late Shri Kamidan was not gainfully employed and that he has not refused to join the duties till 09.05.84 and, therefore, he was entitled to all service benefits upto that period. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that after 09.05.84, Shri Karnldan is not willing to join duties and, therefore, no wages could be paid to him after that period and passed the award of Rs. 52,544/ - with 12 per cent interest.

(2.) IT may be recorded that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court Shri Kanidan died on 21.02.85 and thereafter his wife also died. The present respondents No. 2 to 5 are his son and daughters. The only question raised in this petition is that in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 33C(2) of the Act the Labour Court has no authority to grant interest on the amount directed to be paid to the claimants. In the absence of specific powers no interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum could have been granted by the Labour Court.

(3.) IT appeals that the best part of Karnidan's life was spent in litigation to get the illegal order of termination set aside. When ultimately he succeeded in that he was denied the fruits of the award passed in his favour and a false plea was taken that he has refused employment and was gainfully employed elsewhere to deny reinstatement and back -wages to him. As a result thereof, he was forced to take recourse again to the Court of law and during the pendency of subsequent litigation he died leaving all the efforts made by him gone in vain. He could not enjoy the fruits of the order of the Court passed in his favour. His wife also died during the pendency of the litigation. It is now his legal representatives who are pursuing the litigation.