BALDEO PANDEY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE in these two writ applications, the petitioners are aggrieved by part of the order dated 12.12.1994 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in M.J, Case No. 14 of 1990 and M.J. Case No. 16 of 1990 filed under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE admitted facts are that petitioner was in the service of the respondent No. 2, M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co, Ltd. and was dismissed from service by order of the 5.6.1969 on the ground of his conviction in criminal case. The said order of conviction was however set aside by the High Court in terms of the judgment dated 25.7.1975 and he was acquitted from the charges. Petitioner then made a demand and raised industrial dispute for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service, which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court for adjudication vide Reference Case No. 20 of 1976. The Labour Court passed the Award dated 29.3.1978 in favour of the petitioner and he was directed to be reinstated with full back wages and other benefits. The said Award was affirmed upto Supreme Court. The petitioner was reinstated in service but he was not paid consequential benefits including arrears of salary. Petitioner thereafter filed two claini applications under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur which was registered as PW Case No. 8/78 and PW Case No. 8/79. The claim of the petitioner was allowed by the authority under the aforesaid Act. The respondents TISCO then filed appeal being M.A. No. 3/80 and 4/80 against the aforesaid order which were dismissed vide judgment dated 24.3.1990. In the aforementioned application filed under the Payment of Wages Act certain claims made by the petitioners was not entertained and therefore petitioners filed two applications under Section 33C(2) of the said Act 1947 which was registered as M.J. Case No. 14/90 and 16/90. The said applications were opposed by the respondents on various grounds. These two applications were ultimately disposed of by the Labour Court by passing the impugned order on 12.12.1994 whereby the claim of the petitioners on certain heads were allowed but some of the claims have been rejected. Petitioners then aggrieved by the respective part of the order of the Labour Court filed instant two writ applications.

(3.) MR . K.B. Sinha learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent TISCO on the other hand firstly submitted that the application filed before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act was itself barred by the principles of res judicata in view of the fact that petitioner had earlier filed application for the same benefits under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act. Learned counsel further submitted that the Labour Court has committed serious illegality in so far as he entertained the claim of the petitioner regarding medical facility, transport facility etc. when as a matter of fact petitioner was not entitled to because he was not in the service during the relevant time.