RAMJANI DEVI Vs. M/S. TISCO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 29.09.2011 in M.J. Case No.75 of 1999 whereby, the application filed under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been dismissed, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the deceased workman was employed initially with Indian Tube Limited and he was dismissed from service on 25.01.1979. An industrial dispute was raised which after failure of the conciliation proceeding, was referred for adjudication vide Reference Case No.31 of 1979. The reference was answered vide award dated 30.05.1988 where under, the management of M/s TISCO Ltd. was directed to reinstate the workman with 75% back wages and other benefits. It appears that an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was filed by the deceased workman for payment of various benefits accruing to him during the period his service remained terminated. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 29.09.2011, against which the petitioners, who are the legal heirs and successors of the deceased workman namely, Paresha Nand Jha, have filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under the tripartite agreement and the award dated 30.05.1988, the deceased workman was entitled for various allowances which were not paid to him and therefore, the application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was rightly entertained by the labour court. Challenging rejection of the claim for leave encashment to the deceased workman, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the labour court appreciated that the deceased workman was similarly situated and he too was entitled to get leave encashement and therefore ought to have directed the deceased workman to mention the amount instead of rejecting the claim of the deceased workman.