K.P.SANYAL Vs. FERRO SCRAP NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate direction upon the respondents for payment of salary for the period 1.1.1988 to 15.7.1993 together with interest and other benefits.

(2.) THE facts of the case lies in narrow compass. The petitioner was in the service of M/s, Hackett Engineering Company Ltd. Jamshedpur. While he was in service a dispute arose and reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 was made to the Labour Court, Jamshedpur. During the pendency of the reference the whole of the business of M/s. Heokett Engineering Company was put -chased by the respondent M/s. Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited by an agreement dated 27th June. 1979. The Labour Court passed an award and held that the termination of the services of the petitioner by way of punishment was not justified. The Labour Court further held that in view of the fact that M/s. Heckett Engineering Company had transferred its interest to M/s. Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, the erstwhile employer cannot terminate the services of its employee -petitioner. However, Labour Court directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - to the petitioner as compensation. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid award in CWJC No. 1341/83 (R) by which the Labour Court refused to pass an order of his reinstatement. The erstwhile employer M/s. Heckett Engineering Company also filed CWJC No. 43 of 1984 by which the labour Court held that the termination of the services of the petitioner was not justified. Nigam also filed CWJC No. 40/84 (R) challenging the validity of the order of the labour Court by which it was made a party in the reference. All these three writ petitions were heard and disposed of by a Bench of the Patna High Court in terms of judgment dated 23.8.1988. The High Court upheld the finding of the labour Court that the termination of the services of the petitioner was not justified. The High Court further held that the petitioner would be entitled to all the benefits of the service except financial benefit. However, the petitioner shall be paid a consolidated sum of Rs. 10,000/ - by the Nigam.

(3.) IN para 11 of the writ petition the petitioner has admitted that he was reinstated w.e.f. 16.7.1993 and he was also paid the consolidated amount of Rs. 10,000/ -. Now the petitioner claims that he is entitled to the salary for the period January, 1988 to July, 1993. It is stated that the petitioner filed several representations to the Nigam for payment of salary for the aforementioned period but nothing was done.