Back
2015 Supreme(Ori) 703
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
C.R. Dash, J.
GULF OIL CORPORATION LTD. - APPELLANT
Versus
MANOJ KUMAR SAHU - RESPONDENT
Writ Petition (C) Nos. 35, 1795 and 1799 of 2013
Decided On : 10-07-2015
The main legal point established is that a claim under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is maintainable if it is based on a pre-existing right, and the employer has a duty to cooperate in providing relevant documents for adjudication.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Salary, Back Wages, Pre-existing Right - Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - S.G. Ramalingam v. Management of Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Regional Authority, Dena Bank and Another Vs. Ghanshyam, Piara Lal v. Lt. Governor and others, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Another, State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey and Others, Union of India and Another v. Kankuben (Dead) by LRs. and others
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, relating to the determination of dues of a workman against the employer Management based on an award passed by the Labour Court in a previous Industrial Dispute Case.
Finding of the Court:
The Labour Court held that the workman was entitled to back wages and salary at par with co-workers in the same position, based on the award passed in a previous Industrial Dispute Case. The Management's objection to the claim was dismissed, and the Court directed the Management to compute and pay the workman's claim.
Issues: The main issue was whether the workman's claim under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was maintainable based on a pre-existing right, and whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to determine the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the workman's claim was maintainable as it was based on a pre-existing right established in a previous award. The Court also emphasized the duty of the Management to cooperate in providing relevant documents for adjudication.
Final Decision: The Court remanded the matter to the Labour Court for computation of the workman's claim and directed the Management to supply all necessary documents for adjudication. The Management was also directed to pay a specified amount to the workman within a set timeframe.
JUDGMENT :
C.R. Dash, J. - Above noted three writ petitions arise out of I.D. Misc. Case No. 23 of 2006, I.D. Misc. Case No. 2 of 2008 and I.D. Misc. Case No. 7 of 2011 respectively. All the aforesaid I.D. Misc. Cases are proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("I.D. Act" for short) relating to different periods, as claimed by the present opposite party workman. As the proceedings are between the same parties and involve same facts and questions of law, they are taken up together for disposal by this common order.
2. In all the I.D. Misc. Cases under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act the present opposite party workman had prayed to determine his dues relating to salary, etc. against the employer Management on the basis of the award passed by the Labour Court on 31.03.1999 in I.D. Case No. 9 of 1997.
3. The brief facts relevant for disposal of these writ petitions are as follows:--
"The present opposite party workman, while working as a Senior Laboratory Technician under the petitioner Management, was terminated from service on 16.04.1996. He raised an Industrial Dispute before the District Labour Officer, Rourkela, which ended in submission of a Failure Report to the appropriate government. The appropriate government, in turn, referred the matter under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the I.D. Act for adjudication. The P.O., Labour Court, Sambalpur passed the award in the aforesaid I.D. Case No. 9 of 1997 on 31.03.1999 directing reinstatement of the present opposite party workman in service with full back wages from the date of his termination till his reinstatement. It was further directed that, in the event of failure to implement the award, the Management shall be liable to pay interest @ 15% per annum on the back wages till actual payment is made."
4. The Management (present petitioner) challenged the award before this Court under the writ jurisdiction, vide O.J.C. No. 7086 of 1999. Stay was granted in the writ petition subject to compliance of the provision of Section 17-B of the I.D. Act. While the matter was pending, the award was implemented by giving some back wages and the aforesaid O.J.C. was disposed of on 27.04.2005 with the following order:--
"Heard.
The award dated 31st March, 1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur in I.D. Case No. 9 of 1997 is assailed by the petitioner-management in this writ petition.
Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner-management submitted that in the meanwhile the management has complied with the direction issued in the award. In that view of the matter, nothing remains to be decided in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the workman to pursue any other grievances before the appropriate forum, if he is so advised."
5. The present opposite party workman submitted his Joining Report on 24.06.2004, which was duly accepted. In the petition under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act he alleged that from the date of joining he is drawing pay of Rs. 3,894/- per month, which was his existing pay at the time of his termination from service and his pay structure has not been regularized in consonance with the pay drawn by his co-workers in the same position. The applicant thus filed a statement of claim amounting to Rs. 15,50,796/- in two schedules, which include differential salary, differential allowances, etc. including interest.
6. The present petitioner Management filed objection stating that the opposite party workman was, in fact, working in a Junior Management Cadre and he has already been paid full salary for the period of his non-employment due to termination and that, he is not entitled to the claim regarding L.T.C., Bonus, etc. It was specifically averred that the present workman was paid a sum of Rs. 1,13,621/- under Cheque bearing No. 238018 dated 23.09.2004 and he was supplied with a calculation sheet. According to the Management, the application under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act is not ma
