JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE identical questions of law and facts are involved in these ten inter-connected writ petitions, they were heard together and are disposed of by a single judgment. The petitions are directed against a common order of the Labour Court. Jaipur passed on December 7, 1987 in a proceeding under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act' ). By the impugned order, the learned Judge of the Labour Court allowed the workmen's applications and directed the employer to pay fifty percent wages to them. Both, the workmen and the employer feel aggrieved by the said order. The employer is the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, who will be hereinafter referred to as the JDA, or the management or the employer.

(2.) FACTS first. . . . . . . . . . . The facts are common in all the writ petitions and may be borrowed or recited from D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3044/88 JDA v. Chand Singh. The five workmen Chand Singh, Mohan Lal, Suresh Nirmal, Sharma B. Joseph and Shiv-Prakash were employed as Munshies in the Enforcement Division of JDA at the relevant time in November, 1984. The management by its order Annexure-1 dated 30th November, 1984 transferred them along with 176 others to the different wings as mentioned therein. The Association of the workmen challenged the transfer order Annexture-1 by instituting a civil suit in the Court of Additional Munsif (2), Jaipur City, Jaipur, on 7th December, 1984 and prayed for pendente-lite injunction. The Munsif issued notice to the JDA and heard both the parties. He, thereafter, by his order dated 12th December, 1984 issued pendente-lite injunction directing the JDA to maintain the status ante existing on the date of the institution of the suit. The workmen were, however, relieved from their posts of Munshies in Enforcement Division on 10th December, 1984 vide Annexure-2. The JDA went in appeal before the District Judge. The District Judge by his judgment dated 23rd February, 1985 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Munsif and vacated the pendente-lite injuntion. The Association came in revision to this Court. The revision was admitted and operation of the order of the District Judge dated 23rd February, 1985 was stayed on 28th February, 1985. The Association prayed for clarification/modification of the order dated 28th February, 1985. Since no ambiguity was there in the stay order granted on 28th February, 1985, the application for clarification/modification was dismissed on 24th May, 1985 by this Court. Somewhere in November 1985, the workmen were promoted to the posts of Junior Assistants. They joined their new posts of promotion. However, the wages to the workmen for the period from 1st November, 1984 to 30th October, 1985 was not paid by the JDA. According to the workmen they reported themselves on duty before the management but the management neither took work from them nor permitted them to mark their presence in the attendence register. The workmen, therefore, submitted applications under Section 33-C (2) of the Act in the Court of Labour Court Judge, Jaipur for the computation and payment of the wages for the period from 1st November, 1984 to 31st October, 1985. The applications were opposed by the JDA on the ground that the workmen did not turn up for duty nor they discharged any work. The allegation that they reported themselves on duty but no work was taken from them was entirely false and baseless. Since the workmen did not report themselves on duty and discharged no work, they were not entitled for computation and payment of wages for the period from 1st November, 1984 to 31st October, 1985. Evidence was adduced by both the parties. On the conclusion of enquiry the learned Judge held that the workmen reported themselves for duty but performed no work. The JDA did not take work from them. The workmen were, therefore, entitled to get fifty percent of their wages and not more. He, accordingly, passed the impugned order Annexure-12 on 7th December, 1987. Both the parties feel aggrieved with the said order. The contention of the management is that since no work was performed by the workmen during the disputed period, they were not entitled to get any wages for the period. The grievance of the workmen is that they reported themselves on duty but work was not taken from them by the management. They are, therefore, entitled to get full wages for the disputed period.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. M. R. Calla, learned Counsel for the workmen and Mr. R. S. Mehta, learned Counsel for the JDA. We shall first deal with the contentions raised by Mr. Mehta.