Back
1984 Supreme(Ker) 49
Judges : K.BHASKARAN,BALAKRISHNA MENON
ANNAMMA THOMAS - Appellant
Versus
T.JOSEPH - Respondent
Case No : W.A. No. 75 of 1983, O.P. No. 4538 of 1983
Decided On : 02/16/1984
Advocates Appeared :
T.A. Narayanan Nair; For Petitioner M.M. Cheriyan; Asok Cheriyan; For Respondents
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employee, whose termination of service has been set aside, should report for duty and offer his services within a reasonable time after the award has been passed in his favor. The employee will be entitled to wages only from the date on which he has intimated his willingness to work to the employer and is prepared to make his services available to him.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Relief under S.33-C(2) - S.33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of S.33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which deals with the calculation and payment of money due from an employer to an employee. The court also referred to S.19(3), (5), and (6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which specify the period for which an award shall remain in operation and continue to bind the parties. The court interpreted these provisions to determine the entitlement of the employee to backwages and future wages, considering the employee's duty to report for duty or express willingness to work after the award. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions in relation to the employee's claim for future wages.
Fact of the Case:
The 1st respondent, a Supervisor, was discharged from service. An industrial dispute was raised, and the Industrial Tribunal directed reinstatement with backwages. The employee filed an application claiming backwages and future wages under S.33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The employer challenged the validity of the award, and the employee initiated conciliation proceedings for implementation of the award.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the employee was entitled to future wages from a certain date, but not for a previous period, based on the employee's duty to report for duty or express willingness to work after the award. The court directed the Labour Court to recompute the wages due to the employee and pass fresh orders for payment.
Issues: The issues involved the entitlement of the employee to future wages under S.33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, considering the employee's duty to report for duty or express willingness to work after the award.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an employee, whose termination of service has been set aside, should report for duty and offer his services within a reasonable time after the award has been passed in his favor. The employee will be entitled to wages only from the date on which he has intimated his willingness to work to the employer and is prepared to make his services available to him.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal to the extent of directing the Labour Court to recompute the wages due to the employee and dismissed it in other respects. The petition was dismissed, and the parties were directed to suffer their respective costs.
1. Both the writ appeal and the O.P. arise out of proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent for relief under S.33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2.The 1st respondent was a Supervisor of the petitioner's estate. He was discharged from service on 20-4-19,64. An industrial dispute was raised by the Union of which the employee is a member and the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut, by its award dated 21-12-1974 in I. D. No. 118 of 1964 directed reinstatement of the employee with backwages. The award of the Industrial Tribunal was published in the gazette dated 11-2-1975. The petitioner challenged the validity of the Award in O. P. No. 1815 of 1975 before this Court. It is admitted by both sides that the O. P. was dismissed confirming the award of the Industrial Tribunal. Thereafter the employee filed Ext. P1 application before the Labour Court, Quilon, under S.33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming backwages upto the date of the award and also future wages till 30-4-1975, at the rate of Rs. 300/- per mensem. Ext. P2 dated 12-9-1975 is a copy of the objections filed by the 1st respondent wherein he has refuted the employee's claim for future wages for the reason that he had not reported for duty after the award of the Industrial Tribunal. He had also disputed the quantum of wages claimed. According to him the employee was entitled only to wages at the rate of Rs. 2.50 per day for six days in a week. Exts. P3 and P5 were similar petitions filed by the employee for future wages for the periods from 1-5-1975 to 1-12-1975 and from 1-12-1975 to 30-1-1979 respectively. Exts. P4 and P6 are copies of objections filed by the petitioner in answer to Exts. P3 and P5. As per Ext. P7 order dated 12-11-1979, the 2nd respondent, the Labour Court, Ernakulam held that the employee is entitled not only to backwages from the date of discharge but also to future wages from the date of the award of the Industrial Tribunal. The Labour Court however found on the basis of the evidence in the case that his wages were only at the rate of Rs. 2.50 per day for six days a week and awarded backwages at that rate for the period upto 1-4-1970 and at the rate notified under the Minimum Wages Act for the period subsequent to 1-4-1970, on which date the notification in respect of persons of the category to which the employee belonged, had came into force. The Labour Court overruled the petitioner's plea that the employee was not entitled to future wages for the reason of his failure to report for duty after the date of the award by the Industrial Tribunal. It was found that the employee had filed a petition before the District Labour Officer for implementation of the award claiming reinstatement and backwages. Ext. P4 dated 20-7-1977 produced before the Labour Court was the notice of the conciliation proceedings issued to the 1st respondent for a Conference to be held at the Office of the District Labour Officer on 5-8-1977. The 2nd respondent on the basis of Ext. P4 held that since the employee had requested for implementation of, the award requiring also reinstatement in service, his claim for future wages cannot be negatived on the ground that he had not reported for duty after the award in his favour. O. P. No. 310 of 1980 challenging the validity of Ext. P7 order was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court and Writ Appeal No. 75 of 1983 is filed against the said decision.
3. O.P. No. 4538 of 1983 is against Ext. P5 order of the Labour Court dated 14-3-1983 directing payment of wages to the employee from 1-2-1979 to 31-3-1980. Ext. P5 order produced in O. P. No. 4538 of 1983 was passed on the basis of the decision in Ext. P7 order produced in O. P. No. 310 of 1980 wherein it was held that the employee is entitled to future wages from the date of the award of the Industrial Tribunal.
4. Counsel for the petitioner concedes that the employee is entitled to wages until the date of the award and the employer has no objection in dir
