STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. AKUL CHANDRA MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The order dated 05.07.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in M.J. Case No. 40 of 1995 is under challenge by the petitioner State of Jharkhand whereunder they have been directed to pay Rs. 35,000/- to the sole respondent as unpaid back wages for the period August, 1988 to July, 1995 and interest thereupon within a period of two months from the date of order failing which it would carry on interest @ 8 % per annum till it is paid.

(2.) The sole respondent had preferred an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur seeking payment of wages for the period August, 1988 to July, 1995 @ Rs. 500/- per month and further compensation. According to the workman, the respondent-petitioners engaged him as Munshi on 30.01.1983 at Kutting Depot and had paid Rs. 350/- per month which was increased up to Rs. 500/-. He continued in service up to 30.07.1998 and thereafter an FIR was lodged against him at Kamalpur Police Station corresponding to G.R. No. 516 of 1988 under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted in the said case and, thereafter, he approached the Divisional Forest Officer for his salary claiming that he has never been suspended or discharged from service for the period for which he has claimed the salary. The respondent No. 3, State Trading Division through its Divisional Forest Officers, Dhalbhoom, Jamshedpur appeared on notice and took categorical stand that petitioner was only daily wage earner and not a permanent employee. He has been paid dues for the period he has worked and he has never been engaged after July, 1988, when an FIR was lodged against him for misappropriating government money. The learned Labour Court has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant-respondent herein and observed that appointment of the applicant is not challenged and the document relied upon by the workmen required no discussion. However, no evidence relating to continuance of discharge of duty was produced by the workmen for the claim of the wages for the period August, 1988 to July, 1995. The issue, therefore, was a disputed questions of fact, according to the claim of the applicant- workman and not based upon on any settlement between the parties or on the basis of any undisputed documents brought on record. Even then, learned Labour Court has proceeded to award wages of the workman for the period August, 1988 to July, 1995 alongwith interest to the amount awarded @ Rs. 500/- per month totaling Rs. 35,000/-. It has held that the claim for the earlier period was time barred but failed to take into account the nature of proceeding under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Determination of disputed question of facts in a proper proceeding are preconditions before invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the I.D. Act for claim of any wages or salary. The present case, therefore, is not one of them where the claim of the respondent-workman was based on settlement or any award of the learned Labour Court relating to question of fact which in the instant case was seriously in dispute. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 05.07.2005 suffers from serious error of law as well as on facts and requires to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.07.2007 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed.