Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act enforces adjudicated wage claims, without re-examining eligibility; established employer-employee relations must be acknowledged.

JUDGMENT :

AARTI SATHE, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the Appellant being aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 19^th July 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned order’) passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1828 of 2010 dismissing the Petition filed by the Appellant/Petitioner, thereby upholding the order passed by the Labour Court dated 1^st August 2009 which held that the respondent/workman was entitled to the benefit of his wages in adjudicating proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

2. Briefly the facts are as follows:-

i. The Appellant (Org. Petitioner), being the employer, is inter-alia engaged in the manufacture and marketing of industrial magnets. On 20^th May 1987, the Respondent joined the employment of the Appellant/Petitioner-Company as a helper in its canteen. There were separate canteens for Supervisors, Executive and Managerial Staff (‘known as managerial canteen’) as well as for visitors (known as ‘Workers’ Canteen’). A separate set of workmen were engaged for these two separate canteens. The service conditions of the workmen working in the managerial canteen were different as they were considered from the beginning, at par with workers working on the shop floor. The employees working in the managerial canteen were paid wages applicable as per the settlements between Union/Kamgar Utkarsh Sabha and the Appellant. However, the workers working in the worker’s canteen were paid as per minimum wages.

ii. The Appellant’s contention is that since the Respondent-workman had remained absent from work without intimation, a notice dated 28^th December 1995 was served on him, whereby he was called upon to submit a written explanation of his absence from duties. However, the Respondent-workman did not respond to the aforesaid notice and continued to remain absent from duties. The services of the Respondent-workman were therefore terminated on the said date.

iii. On 4^th April 1996, the Respondent-workman filed Complaint (ULP) No. 181 of 1996 under Item 1 of Schedule IV to the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) alleging that his services were illegally terminated.

iv. On 11^th July 1996, an order was passed by the Labour Court directing the Appellant to allow the Respondent-workman to resume duties within three weeks or pay 70% of the last drawn wages from the date of the order during the pendency of the complaint. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Revision Application No. 94 of 1996 challenging the order dated 11^th July 1996 which was rejected. The Appellant did not allow the Respondent-workman to resume his duties, however opted to pay 70% of the wages. On 1^st December 1998, the Labour Court held that since the Appellant had a statutory canteen, therefore, there existed an employer-employee relation between the Appellant and the canteen workers, which covered both the canteens. This order of 1^st December 1998 has not been challenged by the Appellant and has thus attained finality. On 21^st January 1999, the Labour Court passed final order in Complaint (ULP) No. 181 of 1996 holding that the termination of the Respondent-workman was illegal and granted Rs. 75,000/- to the Respondent-workman in lieu of reinstatement.

v. In the year 1999, the Respondent-workman challenged the order of denial of reinstatement by filing Revision Application No.31 of 1999. On such proceedings on 11^th October 1999, the Industrial Court passed an order directing that the Respondent-workman be reinstated with full backwages and continuity in service.

vi. As noted hereinabove, by virtue of the orders passed by the Labour Court dated 1^st December 1998, the canteen of the Appellant/Petitioner Company was considered as a statutory canteen and the workers therein were considered permanent employees, however, the workers working in the worker’s canteen were paid minimum wages, on the ground that none of the workers working