Misuse of the judicial forum to delay the implementation of an award constitutes an abuse of process and can result in the awarding of back wages and costs to the affected party.

V. P. MOHAN KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the award passed by the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent herein had contended that he was working as a pump operator and that his services were illegally terminated, and, therefore, he be reinstated. He thus raised a dispute before the Arbitrator appointed under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The matter was arbitrated by the 2nd respondent, who passed an award, holding that the termination of the services of the 3rd respondent was illegal. He set aside the termination and the 3rd respondent was ordered to be reinstated with 50% back wages from 1-1-1986. In the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent, by a considered order, the award was confirmed on 31-1-1991. It was thereafter the above writ petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court challenging both the award as well as the appellate order. The matter was moved before this court on 1-8-1991 and this Court admitted the writ petition and granted a stay of the operation of the award passed by the 2nd respondent as confirmed by the appellate order, that is to say, the reinstatement order passed by the 2nd respondent was stayed by this Court. Subsequently, by order dated 9-4-1996, the stay granted was modified directing that the 3rd respondent be reinstated forthwith in service. It declared that the recovery of back wages awarded shall however remain stayed till the final disposal of the writ petition. At the earliest point of time when the matter came up on 17-7-1997, after hearing respective sides, it was suggested that the matter should be settled out of Court. On this ground, it was adjourned from time to time. As the area of dispute regarding the back wages could not be located, the respective sides were called upon to file a statement as regards the money, according to them, that was due. It may be noted that as per the award the worker has been awarded 50% of the back wages from 1-1-1986 till reinstatement. The reinstatement has taken place only after the order of this Court on 9-4-1996. As per the statement filed by the worker, a substantial amount was due. On the pretext that the petitioner's Counsel wanted to consult the petitioner, the matter was being adjourned. The matter was adjourned to 22-7-1997, 25-7-1997, 1-8-1997 and to 8-8-1997. On 8-8-1997, the petitioner filed a memo praying that the writ petition be dismissed as withdrawn. As the request was contested by the Counsel for the 3rd respondent as wanting in bona fides, it was adjourned to 22-8-1997. It was ultimately heard on 1-9-1997. In view of the circumstance that the petitioner has sought for dismissal of the petition as not pressed, the Counsel did not address any argument on merits of the case. The learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the whole exercise by the petitioner is a clear case of abuse of the process of Court that had the writ petition not been filed, the 3rd respondent would have earned full wages at least from the date of the appellate order and that compensatory cost should be awarded to the 3rd respondent for the unnecessary harassment meted out to him.

( 2 ) I am of the view that it is a clear case where the petitioner has misused the forum of this Court for delaying the implementation of the award. It may be noted that the dispute between the parties, after the modification of the interim order, was confined to quantum of back wages. The question of the mode of quantifying the back wages is clearly laid down by the decision of this Court in Management of Kolar District co-operative Central Bank Limited v Rama Rao and Another , and all that need be done is to work out the quantum. The worker will be entitled to back wages in terms thereof. The petitioner cannot contend that the 3rd respondent is not entitled to claim back wages.

( 3 ) THE important aspect to be noticed is that the petitioner moved this Court on 27-8-1991 and obtained stay of the enfor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document