Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
R S R T C &Anr vs Madan Lal &Anr on 12 March, 2010
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R 1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.545/1997. The General Manager (Sanchalak) R.S.R.T.C. Versus Madan Lal Sharma & Anr. 2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10519/2009. R.S.R.T.C. Versus Madan Lal Sharma & Anr. Date of Order:- March 12, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ashok Bansal for the petitioner. Shri Manoj Pareek for the respondents. ***** BY THE COURT:-
SBCWP No.545/1997 has been filed by the General Manager (Sanchalak) R.S.R.T.C. Jaipur against the award dated 4/6/1996 by which, Labour Court, Jaipur held retrenchment/termination of the services of the respondent-workman made by the petitioner on 7/6/1983 wrong and held him entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.
2) SBCWP No.10519/2009 has been filed by R.S.R.T.C. against the order passed by the Labour Court allowing thereby application of the respondent-workman under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for paying wages for the period subsequent to the passing of the award from 4/6/1996 till 28/2/1997.
3) Notices issued to respondents in SBCWP No.545/1997 were confined only to that part of the award by which, the respondent-workman was held entitled to back wages; in other words, writ petition was not entertained as regards direction contained in the award holding termination of the respondent workman as illegal and for his reinstatement with continuity of service. Thus, to that extent, writ petition has to be taken as dismissed. However, in SBCWP No.10519/2009, this Court while issuing notices in the writ petition, stayed the operation of the impugned-order passed in SBCWP No.10519/2009.
4) Shri Ashok Bansal, learned counsel for petitioners has argued that there was absolutely no justification for the Labour Court in awarding back wages for the entire period because for reinstatement made on 7/6/1983, notification of reference was issued by the Government on 7/3/1986 and the award in the matter was passed by the Labour Court more than 10 years thereafter on 4/6/1996. Thus, in all, period of 13 years was consumed in that process, for which, petitioners cannot be held responsible in any manner.
5) In SBCWP No.10519/2009, learned counsel submitted for petitioners that Labour Court ought not to have directed for making payment of the subsequent period from 4/6/1996 to 28/2/1997 because operation of that part of the award by which, entire back wages were ordered to be paid, was stayed by this Court while issuing notices in SBCWP No.10519/2009.
6) Shri Manoj Pareek, learned counsel for the respondent-workman submitted that in view of the fact that writ petition was not entertained except for the back wages part of the direction, respondent-workman was reinstated in service and served the petitioner till he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31/7/2008 but the petitioner has illegally treated him to have waived any benefit of regular pay scale, benefit of pay revision etc. and that he was throughout paid on fixed salary at the minimum of the pay scale and on that basis, his retiral benefits were calculated. So far as SBCWP No.10519/2009 is concerned, learned counsel submitted that period worked out by that impugned-order therein were all subsequent to the date of the award i.e. 4/6/1996 to 28/2/1997.
7) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that in the facts of this case, the direction of the labour court to pay full back wags to the respondent-workman for the period from the date of retrenchment till passing of the award cannot be justified because 13 years is really such a long time for which, entire burden cannot be apportioned on the petitioner. Writ petition was entertained on that question owing to this consideration. However, at the same time, subsequent order passed by the labour court allowing application of the respondent workman under Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947 was absolutely just and valid. If petitioner did not make compliance of the award for a pretty long time, that cannot be a reason, for not paying retiral dues to the respondent-workman despite adjudication of his entitlement by the labour court. In any case, period of the wages payable to the respondent-workman covered by the said order for about nine months. Order dated 4/6/1996 does not suffer from any error.
8) Although it may be a fact that both these writ petitions should have been filed by the petitioner at the same time. But it is also equally true that award has been passed by the labour court in favour of the respondent-workman holding his retrenchment to be illegal and directing petitioner to reinstate him in service with continuity. If respondent has been reinstated in service, there appears to be no justification for paying him only at the minimum of the pay scale of the time when he was retrenched or reinstated in service. Like any other employee of the R.S.R.T.C., respondent-workman, he also ought to have been paid revised pay and emoluments and on that basis, all his retiral dues should have been computed.
9) In the result, SBCWP No.545/1997 is allowed to the extent of award of back wages to the respondent-workman. That part of the award, by which, petitioner was required to pay full back wages to the respondent-workman is set-aside. However, in SBCWP No.10519/2009, part of the award, by which, petitioner was required to make payment to the respondent-workman the wages for the period from 4/6/1996 to 28/2/1997 is set-aside. The R.S.R.T.C. shall ensure that all retiral dues be computed and paid to the respondent-workman in terms of this judgment.
10) Both the writ petitions are disposed of in the light of the above.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
ani