Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 as well as the respondent no.3 workmen. The respondents no.2&3 workmen also filed an application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and which was allowed on 13 th May, 2003. The order dated 10 th December, 2003 records that payment of `44,268/- was received by the counsel for the respondents no.2&3 workmen from the petitioner. In the order dated 13 th April, 2004 the contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that since considerable amount of time had elapsed between the alleged termination of services of the respondents no.2&3 workmen in the year 1986 and till then, it would not be appropriate to direct reinstatement of the respondents no.2&3 workmen and they can be compensated in terms of money. Rule was issued in the petition on 17th September, 2004. On 11 th February, 2008, the counsel for the respondents no.2&3 workmen complained of non- compliance of the order under Section 17B of the Act. On 19 th May, 2008, it was agreed between the parties that the respondents no.2&3 workmen will join duty with the petitioner on the next day, without prejudice to the respective rights and contentions; it was further agreed that the respondents no.2&3 workmen would be at liberty to withdraw the entire amount which had already been deposited in this Court and the petitioner would also pay `50,000/- to each of the respondent workmen against the order under Section 17B of the Act. The respondents no.2&3 workmen were accordingly directed to join the Unit of the petitioner at Noida.

5. In the order dated 30th July, 2008, it is recorded that the petitioner had paid `50,000/- to each of the respondent workmen in terms of the order dated 19th May, 2008. The respondents no.2&3 workmen were again directed to join work with the petitioner. On the next date i.e. 17th December, 2008, the counsel for the respondents no.2&3 workmen informed that the respondents no.2&3 workmen were not inclined to join employment with the petitioner in terms of the earlier order (supra) for the reason of the petitioner having failed to pay the arrears of 17B wages. On 23rd September, 2009, it was observed that the respondents no.2&3 workmen are not entitled to wages in terms of order under Section 17B w.e.f. 19 th May, 2008 when offer was given to them to join duty with the petitioner and they failed to join duty. The counsel for the respondents no.2&3 workmen again stated that the respondents no.2&3 workmen will join duty with the petitioner at Noida the next day. However the respondents no.2&3 workmen failed to so join duty and this Court on 12th July, 2010 held that they were not entitled to 17B wages w.e.f. 19th May, 2008. This Court, from the conduct of the respondents no.2&3 workmen of not joining duty, also presumed that they are gainfully employed elsewhere and that the said fact shall be considered at the time of final decision of this petition.

6. The counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents no.2&3 workmen have been heard.

7. There exists on the file a computation filed by the respondents no.2&3 workmen showing a sum of `2,50,629/- as due to the respondent no.2 workman and a sum of `2,21,743/- as due to the respondent no.3 workman under Section 17B of the Act w.e.f. 16 th August, 1999 i.e. the order when the application of the petitioner for setting aside of the ex parte award was dismissed and till 28th February, 2006.

13. Such negligence on the part of the petitioner especially in labour disputes where the parties are expected to appear themselves and representation through advocates is prohibited, cannot be appreciated. Moreover, the petitioner does not appear to have shown any haste before this Court also. In none of the orders passed in the present proceeding have I been able to find any offer made by the petitioner for remand of the petition to the Labour Court for decision afresh. The petitioner was rather content in having the operation of the award stayed as aforesaid and in not paying the Section 17B wages also. Thus the writ petition in so far as challenges the order dated 16th August, 1999 of the Labour Court has no merit.