ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. J.V. Japee appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned advocate Mr.

Ashish H. Shah appearing on behalf of respondent.

2. Law abiding person facing many difficulties when the person gets justice from the Court. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is very unfortunate situation that undisputed claim of the workman challenged by employer with all legal and technical aspects that workman is not entitled this amount and Labour Court has committed an error in granting such benefit. How the Court machineries are being utilised for unnecessary legal fight between two unequal. This is a clear example of such a situation.

3. In the present petition, according to prayer made by petitioner in Para 14-A, order dated 4th December 2007 passed by Labour Court in Recovery Application No.80 of 2006 is challenged which is at Page 35.

4. Learned advocate Mr. J.V. Japee raised following contentions before this Court :

(i) The Labour Court being an Executing Court has no jurisdiction to grant interest.

(ii) The Labour Court has not condoned the delay as no prayer is made by the workman though application under Section 33-C-1 was filed after a period of one year.

(iii) Leave Encashment claimed by the workman in Recovery Application is covered by Schedule-Third and not by Schedule-Second, therefore, Labour Court has no jurisdiction to grant such amount.

5. He has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in case of H.P. State Electricity Board and Another v. Ranjeet Singh and Others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 241, in case of Punjab State & Others v. Harvinder Singh reported in 2008 SCCL.COM 223 and in case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Limited v. Kantilal Balshanker Patel reported in 2002(0) GLHEL

204220.

6. The aforesaid decisions have been relied upon in support of his submissions.

7. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish H. Shah supported the decision of Labour Court.

8. I have perused the papers annexed to the petition by the petitioner and I have also perused the order passed by Labour Court in Recovery Application No.80 of 2006 dated 4th December 2007. The workman was working as Sweeper with the petitioner as a permanent employee. His service was terminated on 1st May 1983 by the petitioner, then, he raised industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Nadiad being a Reference No.1080 of 1983 which has been decided by the Labour Court in favour of workman. The Labour Court granted reinstatement with 75% backwages of interim period from 1st May 1983 to 16th June 1992. Against this award, one Review Application was filed by the petitioner which was ultimately withdrawn by the petitioner, but, one fact is admitted by the petitioner before the Labour Court as well as before this Court that award in question is not set aside by the higher forum or Labour Court and till date, award remains intact.

9. According to learned advocate Mr. Japee that respondent workman was working in Municipal Corporation and therefore, he was not interested in job, but, workman is entitled for the wages as per direction issued by Labour Court for the period from 1st May 1983 to 16th June 1992. Earlier, workman had filed an application under the Payment of Wages Act which was dismissed on the ground that Recovery Application is filed by the workman under Section 33-C-1 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In Recovery Application, claim was Rs.41,106/- with 18% interest and with cost of Rs.3,000/-. Before the Labour Court, petitioner had filed reply vide Exh.7 and raised certain contentions that Labour Court has no jurisdiction. There was no certain amount mentioned in the award, therefore, Labour Court cannot pass such order as claimed by respondent.

10. It is necessary to note that before the Labour Court, workman had claimed the interest in the application itself. No such contention was raised by the petitioner before the Labour Court that Labour Court has no jurisdiction to grant interest. No such contention was raised b