STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Babban Lal, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Sumir Prasad, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

(2.) THE concerned workman was dismissed from service with effect from 18.1.1980 for certain misconducts. While Reference Case No. 39/1973 was pending, the Management filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for approval. That application was numbered as Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 1980. Thereafter, the Petitioner raised objection to the extent that the concerned workman was not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. The preliminary objection was rejected which was challenged before the then Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 1205 of 1983 (R) but that application was dismissed on 22.4.1987. Thereafter, an L.P.A. was filed which was disposed off on 16.5.1988 refusing to interfere with the order. However, the Labour Court did not accord the approval and accordingly rejected the application filed under Section 33(2)(b). The Management challenged the same before the High Court but that was also dismissed vide C.W.J.C. No. 1340 of 1988 (R). While the aforementioned Writ Application was pending, the concerned workman made a prayer that he should be allowed to resume duty and by order dated 5.10.1988, the High Court observed that there was no reason as to why the Respondent No. 2 should not be allowed to join his duty. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 2 resumed duty on and from 17.11.1988. According to the Petitioner, they paid the Respondent No. 2 his full wages from 12.2.1979 to 18.1.1980 after deducting subsistence allowance. It has further been stated in the Writ Application that his wages for the other periods were also paid but surprisingly the Respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 33(2)(c) claiming monetary benefits on a higher scale which was registered M.J. Case No.5 of 1993.

(3.) MR . Babban Lal points out that the bone of contention in this case is that the Respondent No. 2;claims higher wages on comparing his case with S.P. Dubey. He draws attention of this Court to paragraphs5 and 6 of the Order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro in M.J. Case No.5 of 1993. The said paragraphs are quoted below