The Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding backwages without a pre-existing right, as reinstatement does not automatically confer entitlement to backwages.

ORDER :

(MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.)

This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by an order dated 14^th November, 2018 in C.P.No.46 of 2017 on the file of the learned Labour Court, Madurai.

2.1. The brief facts that are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are as under:

2.2. The respondent herein while working as Night Watchman in the petitioner-Societywas dismissed from service by an order dated 21.08.1997. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein raised an industrial dispute vide I.D.No.59 of 1998 on the file of the learned Labour Court, Madurai and the said Industrial Dispute was allowed by the learned Labour Court by an award dated 16.08.2007 setting aside the order of dismissal and directing for reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service. It was thereafter, the respondent was reinstated by taking an undertaking from the respondent that he will not make any claim for backwages for the period, since the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. It was thereafter, the respondent started making a claim for backwages for the period he was kept out of service because of the order of dismissal from service by submitting a representation before the petitioner.

2.3. Thereafter, the respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(MD) No.588 of 2012 seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the petitioner herein to consider the representation said to have been submitted by him for backwages. The said writ petition was refused to be entertained by this Court by an order dated 01.04.2013 on the ground that the petitioner therein has an efficacious remedy under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the I.D.Act”) and left it open to the petitioner therein who is the respondent herein to workout his remedies under the provisions of law.

2.4. It was thereafter, the respondent filed a petition under Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act before the learned Labour Court claiming an amount of Rs.4,43,814/- towards arrears of salary with interest and for costs. The said claim made by the respondent herein was allowed by the learned Labour Court by order dated 14.11.2018. It is aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

3. Heard Mr.S.Selvakrishnan, learned counsel for Mr.L.George Paul Anto, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Ganesamoorthi, learned counsel for Mr.K.Vinayagan, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. A perusal of the Award in I.D.No.59 of 1998 would disclose that the petitioner has sought for the relief of setting aside of the order of dismissal and sought for reinstaement with continuity of service. The relief as sought for by the respondent herein was granted by the learned Labour Court by award dated 16.08.2007. The Award does not disclose that the respondent herein sought for any relief with regard to backwages or arrears of salary from the date of dismissal.

5. The learned Labour Court having examined the matter in detail, came to the conclusion that the respondent herein is entitled for all the reliefs sought for and accordingly, granted the relief duly setting aside the order of dismissal and ordering for reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service. In the absence of any claim made or relief sought for backwages, in I.D.No.59 of 1998, there was no occasion for the petitioner herein, who was arrayed as respondent in the said Industrial Dispute to resist any such claim made by the respondent, nor there was any occasion for the learned Labour Court to make an adjudication and render a decision as to whether the respondent herein is entitled for any backwages or not.

6. However, the learned Labour Court while considering the claim made by the respondent herein in C.P.No.46 of 2017 under Section 33C(2), came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for backwages on three counts. Firstly, on the ground that the learned Labour Court in I.D.No.59 of 1998 came to the conclusion t