The employer must comply with the Labour Court's award, and failure to do so can justify the court's decision to direct the employer to pay the employee at the prevailing pay scale.

Ms. Vandana Kasrekar, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 23.2.2008 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sagar in Case No 51/I.D. Act. Reference/200.

2. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Modeler on vacant post on 28.2.1992. Respondent No. 1 made demand for regular salary, therefore, the services of respondent No. 1 were terminated by the petitioner. Respondent No. filed an application for reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes act As the conciliation proceeding were failed, respondent No. 1 filed statement of claim before the Labour Court. The order of termination was challenged by respondent No. 1 mainly on the ground that the same has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing and without conducting any enquiry. The petitioner has not complied with the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act before passing the order of termination. Despite notice, the petitioner did not appear before the Labour Court. The Labour Court passed ai award dated 10.8.1996 thereby reinstating respondent No. 1 at prevailing pay scale. Being aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 1683/1997 before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed or 22.10.2002.

3. Thereafter respondent No. 1 has filed case No. 51/2005 before the Labour Commissioner seeking relief for payment of arrears arising out of regular salary as per award dated 10.8.1996. Notices were issued to the petitioner. The Labour Court has passed an award dated 23.2.2008 by which it has been directed to pay difference of salary to respondent No. 1. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is illegal and arbitrary. She has further argued that the award dated 10.8.1996 was passed by the Labour Court ex-parte without hearing the petitioner. She has further submitted that respondent No. 1 was appointed on the post of Assistant Modeler at the Collector rate basis and he had paid the amount as per the Collector rate basis. As there is no regular post of Assistant Modeler in the department, he is not entitled to get the regular pay scale of the said post, therefore, the Labour Court has erred in passing the impugned award in favour of respondent No. 1.

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has submitted that the award passed by the Labour Court is just and proper. He has argued that the award dated 10.8.1996 has attained finality as the same was affirmed by this Court by passing the order in W.P. No. 1683/1997. He has further submitted that so far as opportunity of hearing is concerned, this Court in the order dated 22.10.2002 has observed that notice was issued to the petitioner, however, nobody appeared on behalf of the Joint Director and had participated in the proceeding and raised all the defence as permissible under law.

Thus, the Labour Court did not commit any error in proceeding ex-parte against the present petitioner. The order passed by this Court has attained finality. The' Labour Court while passing the award dated 10.8.1996 has directed the petitioner to reinstate respondent No. 1 on the post of Assistant Modeler and also pay the prevailing pay scale, therefore, he is entitled to get the pay scale at the prevailing rate and, thus, the Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the said award.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Respondent No. 1 had earlier filed a dispute under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act challenging his order of termination. Labour Court vide award dated 10.8.1996 has directed the petitioner to reinstate respondent No. 1 on the post of Assistant Modeler along with prevailing pay scale, however, instead of paying the arrears at the prevailing rate, the petitioner