PROJECT OFFICER, DHANSAR COLLIERY Vs. AJAY KUMAR PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 19.3.2013 in M.J. Case No. 64 of 2011, the present writ petition has been filed. The brief facts of the case are that, the respondent-workman was appointed on 21.12.1982 as E.P-Fitter with M/s. BCCL. A notice dated 15.5.2010 was issued to the respondent-workman indicating 31.10.2010 the date of his superannuation. The workman made representation to the authority however, simultaneously, he moved this Court in W.P(S) No. 4298 of 2010 challenging notice dated 15.5.2010. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.9.2010 directing the petitioner -M/s. BCCL to dispose of representation of the workman by a speaking order. Consequent upon direction of this Court, orders dated 26.10.2010 and 11.2.2011 were passed, accepting 2.7.1956 as date of birth of the respondent-workman. Vide office order dated 11.2.2011 the respondent-workman was permitted to join his duty and on the same day he entered into a Settlement under which he agreed not to claim wages for the idle period.

(2.) Mr. A.K. Mehta, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that whether settlement dated 11.2.2011 was validly entered into between M/s. BCCL and the respondent-workman or not, was not an issue before the Labour Court. Exercising jurisdiction under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court cannot adjudicate rights of the parties. Application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is maintainable only if the right of the workman is flowing from an award or it has been admitted by the Management. Relying on a decision in State of Uttranchal v. Jagpal Singh Tyagi, 2005 8 SCC 49 the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the respondent-workman has signed settlement dated 11.2.2011 and he joined his duty, he cannot be permitted to resile from the said settlement.

(3.) As against the above, Mr. P K. Mukhopadhyay, the learned Counsel for the respondent-Workman submits that admittedly notice dated 15.5.2010 was issued, illegally. The petitioner-BCCL itself admitted the date of birth of the respondent-workman as 2.7.1956. Since, respondent-workman was illegally prevented from discharging his duty, the Labour Court has rightly allowed application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is further submitted that neither in letter dated 26.10.2010 nor in order dated 11.2.2011, any condition was imposed whereunder, the respondent-workman can be deprived of the wages for the idle period which is only 88 days.