Madras High Court
Sirukalathur Handloom Weavers ... vs Labour Court And Anr on 19 October, 1995
Equivalent citations: [1996(74)FLR2369]
JUDGMENT K.A. Swami, C.J.
1. At the state of admission of this appeal, the contesting second Respondent is represented through a counsel. As the matter lies in a narrow compass, the writ appeal is admitted and heard for final disposal.
2. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated March 3, 1995, passed by the learned single judge in W. M. P. No. 5181 of 1994, filed in W. P. No. 1979 of 1994. In the said writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the award dated March 4, 1993 passed by the Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli, directing reinstatement of the second respondent with backwages. Pending disposal of the writ petition, an interim order was passed on February 8, 1994 in W. M. P. No. 1979 of 1994 in the following terms :
"Reinstatement of R. Raju (second respondent) as ordered by the Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli (first respondent), in its award dated March 4, 1993 and made in I. D. No. 25 of 1992 is stayed pending disposal of the writ petition subject to the following conditions :
1. Sirukalathur Handloom Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Society Limited (petitioner) is required to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000 (rupees twenty thousand only) an approximate amount towards backwages before the first respondent Labour Court within a period of four weeks from today and the deposit, if so made, the first respondent Labour Court is directed to invest the same in a nationalised bank on a fixed deposit, which should be extended from time to time, pending disposal of the writ petition.
2. The petitioner is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 310 said to have been received by him towards his salary, prior to his dismissal every month on or before 7th of the succeeding English calendar month on and from the date of the filing of the writ petition, i.e., to say February 7, 1994.
If any of these conditions are not complied with it is open to the second respondent to enforce the award in accordance with law. Notice."
3. The petitioner/appellant has deposited the sum of Rs. 20,000 as per the first direction issued in the aforesaid order before the Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli, and the same has been invested in a nationalised bank. Subsequently, as the petitioner thought that it would be in the interest of both to reinstate the second respondent and pay the current wages, he made an application for modification of the order dated February 8, 1994. The learned single judge by the order under appeal has rejected W. M. P. No. 1994 holding that there is no justification to modify the order passed on February 8, in W. M. P. No. 3233 of 1994.
4. It may be pointed out here that in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award, which directs reinstatement and payment of backwages, if the employer seeks stay of the award, such an award cannot be stayed without directing payment of last drawn wages. It is also open to the employer in such a case to reinstate the workman concerned as per the award. In the event the employer prefers to reinstate the workman, there would be no justification on the part of the Court to insist that the employee should not be reinstated, and the employer should continue to pay the last drawn wages. In preferring to reinstate the workman the employer would be implementing the award which directs him to reinstate the workman. Such a move of the employer cannot be stalled by the Court. Therefore, we are of the view that it is difficult to accept the view taken by the learned single Judge. We accordingly allow the writ appeal and set aside the order dated February 8, 1994 and modify the order dated February 8, 1994, passed in W. M. P. No. 3233 of 1994 in the following terms :
The award in so far as it directs reinstatement is not stayed. The appellant has to reinstate the second respondent on November 1, 1995, and the second respondent shall report to duty on November 1, 1995. During the pendency of the writ petition, the writ petitioner shall continue to pay current wages as is payable to the workman similarly placed. The petition filed under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the second respondent before the Labour Court, in C. P. No. 80 of 1993, shall be decided and disposed of by the Labour court, Tiruchirapalli, within six weeks from today, After the Labour Court decides C. P. No. 80 of 1993 the amount of backwages payable to the second respondent, as computed by the Labour Court in C. P. No. 80 of 1993 be deposited before the Labour Court by the writ petitioner within six weeks from the date of such computation. It is open to the writ petitioner to give credit to Rs. 20,000 already deposited and deposit the balance amount in the Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli. The amount so deposited and the sum of Rs. 20,000 already deposited both together shall be invested by the Labour Court in any scheduled bank and the interest accrued thereon shall be paid to the second respondent during the pendency of the writ petition. The above directions are given without prejudice to the contentions and rights of the respective parties to pursue their case. No Costs. C. M. P. No. 14593 of 1995 is also disposed of.