Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
M/s Green Field Tea Warehouse, Represented by its Proprietor, Md. Monirul Hassan & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Labour & Employment Department & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 6698 of 2023 & 1094 of 2018
Decided On : 23-07-2024
EMPLOYMENT - DISMISSAL AND REINSTATEMENT - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947: SECTIONS 10, 17, 17A, 19; PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936: SECTIONS 3, 5 - The court discussed the enforceability of awards under the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly focusing on Sections 17, 17A, and 19, which outline the publication, commencement, and duration of awards. The court interpreted these provisions to conclude that the award for reinstatement had become unenforceable due to the employee's failure to rejoin her post within the stipulated time. The Payment of Wages Act was referenced to clarify the employer's responsibilities regarding wage payments, but it was determined that the Assistant Labour Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for higher wages without an established industrial dispute.
Fact of the Case:
The employee was verbally employed by the employer and was dismissed on 20.05.2010. After unsuccessful conciliation, the employee raised an industrial dispute regarding her dismissal, which led to a Labour Court award for reinstatement with full back wages. The employee later claimed entitlement to a higher pay scale, which was rejected by the Labour Court, and she did not rejoin her post despite multiple notices from the employer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the employee's claim for higher wages was not properly raised during the initial proceedings and that the Labour Court's award had become unenforceable due to her failure to rejoin her post. The court held that the Assistant Labour Commissioner could not adjudicate the wage claim as it was not within their jurisdiction under the Payment of Wages Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the employer was justified in dismissing the employee? 2. Whether the employee was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and a higher pay scale? 3. Whether the award of the Labour Court had become unenforceable?
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the award became unenforceable under Section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act due to the employee's failure to rejoin her post. The court emphasized that the Assistant Labour Commissioner lacked the authority to determine claims for higher wages without an established industrial dispute.
Final Decision: The court set aside the proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and held that the award dated 30.03.2013 had become unenforceable, thus disposing of the writ petitions.
JUDGMENT :
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions. Also heard Mr. H.R. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 in WP(C) No.6698/2023 and for the respondent No.3 in WP(C) No.1094/2018 and Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State respondent in both the writ petitions.
2. At the outset it may be stated that the petitioner in WP(C) No.1094/2018 is the proprietor of the petitioner firm in WP(C) No.6698/2023. Further, the respondent No.2 in WP(C) No.6698/2023 is the same person as respondent No.3 in WP(C) No.1094/2018. Both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this judgment and order, as the subject matter in issue in both the writ petitions are connected to each other. The writ petitioner is the employer, while the respondent No.2 in WP(C) No.6698/2023 as well as the respondent No.3 in WP(C) No.1094/2018, is the employee
3. The brief facts of the case is that the employee (workman) was verbally employed to maintain the accounts of the employer w.e.f. 14.11.1996. The employer used to pay Rs.1,000/-per month as wages for the period from November 1996 to December 1999. Thereafter, the employee's wages was increased and till the time of her dismissal, her wages had increased to Rs.4,000/-per month. The employee was dismissed from service on 20.05.2010.
4. The employee submitted a complaint before the Office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner with regard to her claim for being entitled for payment of salary/wages of a Grade-I employee and the same was registered in the Office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 29.10.2010 as LPW No.5/2010. During the proceedings of LPW No.5/2010, the employee made a submission that as the employee had been dismissed from service and as there was scope to entertain the claim of the employee for higher pay/salary under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the employee may be allowed to make an appropriate claim before the appropriate forum under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The same was allowed by the Office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, by disposing of the LPW No.5/2010 vide order dated 08.06.2011.
5. The employee thereafter raised an industrial dispute with regard to her dismissal from service and as the conciliation proceedings failed, a reference was made to the learned Labour Court for resolution of the dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wherein the case of the employee was registered as Reference Case No.2/2012.
6. During the proceedings of Reference Case No.2/2012, the following issues were framed by the learned Labour Court:-
(ii) If not, whether the employee was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and benefits or any other relief as may be deem fit and proper?
The employee did not raise the issue relating to payment of higher salary/wages during the conciliation proceedings and at the time of reference of the case to the learned Labour Court under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
7. The case of the employee before the learned Labour Court was that her dismissal from service should be set aside and that she should be reinstated with full back wages/benefits. The employee also made a prayer, after the Labour Court proceedings had started, that as the employee (workman) had joined her service as Grade-I employee, the employee should be given her full back wages as per the pay given to a Grade-I employee.
8. The learned Labour Court, vide its Award dated 30.03.2013, held that the employer was not justified in dismissing/discharging the employee from her service and that the employee was to be reinstated in her service with full back wages. With regard to the prayer of the employee that she should be given her pay as a Grade-I employee, the learned Labour Court, Guwahati, in para 18 of the Award, held that the claim of the employee that she had been given a l
An award under the Industrial Disputes Act becomes unenforceable if the employee fails to comply with its terms, and the Assistant Labour Commissioner cannot adjudicate claims for higher wages withou....
Employees must actively pursue reinstatement post-award; however, employers' refusal to act can diminish employees' obligations to report for work.
Claiming wages - It is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part th....
Point of Law : Court does not find any cogent reasoning in the order of the Labour Court in so far as the denial of relief of reinstatement or back-wages is concerned.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
