The judgment establishes the importance of compliance with court orders, the maintainability of revision under section 44, and the need for clarity in operative directions of court orders.

JUDGMENT - Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.:---The petitioner had filed a complaint (Complaint U.L.P. No. 501 of 1990) in which it was alleged that the first respondent was guilty of an unfair labour practices under Items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act"). The petitioner was engaged as a motor training instructor by the First respondent with effect from 15th February, 1988 on a monthly salary of Rs. 1,200/-. The grievance of the petitioner was that he had been denied the benefit of permanency as well as other benefits which were being enjoyed by the permanent workmen. The grievance of the petitioner was also that the existing settlement extended benefits to all employees other than the motor training instructors. The complaint filed by the petitioner came to be allowed by an order dated 17th November, 1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay and the following operative directions were issued by the Industrial Court :

"Complainant is entitled to all the benefits like a permanent employee and will also be eligible for P.F., E.S.I. Bonus after completion of 240 days of his service.

Respondents are directed to fix the salary and allowance of the complainant equal to other instructors and make all the difference of payment to complainant."

2. The first respondent has filed writ petition in this Court, being Writ Petition No. 955 of 1996 which came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 19th June, 1996. After the dismissal of the writ petition on 19th June, 1996, the first respondent wrote a letter to the petitioner enclosing a statement of the difference in salary and other allowances to which the petitioner was entitled in view of the order of the Industrial Court. The petitioner was informed that he was accordingly entitled to the payment of an amount of Rs. 1,03,124/- for which a cheque was enclosed. Besides, the petitioner was also intimated that he would be entitled to other statutory benefits-Provident Fund, E.S.I. and bonus upon the expiry of 240 days from his initial engagement on 15th October, 1988. The salary of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 2,300/- per month upon which he was also entitled to other statutory benefits.

3. The petitioner had instituted a complaint immediately upon the order of the Industrial Court dated 17th November, 1995 allowing his complaint. The complaint which was instituted by the petitioner on 31st January, 1996 was under the provisions of section 48 of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The petitioner complained of a breach of the order passed by the Industrial Court. The Labour Court before whom the complaint was filed, issued process by an order dated 28th October, 1996. The attention of the Labour Court was drawn to the fact that on 14th August, 1996, the first respondent had sent a cheque in the amount of Rs. 1,03,124/- together with its covering letter which as noted above had also fixed the salary of the complainant and allowed him the benefit of other statutory payments. The Labour Court, however, issued process on the complaint under section 48 holding that on the date on which the complaint was filed. 31st January, 1996, the order of the Industrial Court had not been complied with. The Court was of the view that the dispute between the parties as regards interpretation of the order of the Industrial Court and with regard to the computation of benefits payable to the petitioner, would have to be considered after evidence was led by the parties. The first respondent challenged the order of the Labour Court issuing process in a revision under section 44 of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The Industrial Court has allowed the revision and has set aside the order issuing process. The Industrial Court has held that the first respondent had, upon the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner in this Court, complied with the order of the Industrial

Click Here to Read the rest of this document