@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Bela M. Trivedi, J.@mdashThe present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "the Labour Court") in case No. L.C.C. 15/13. The petition has been resisted by the respondents by filing the reply, to which the petitioner has filed the rejoinder.
2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record.
3. In the instant case, it appears that the petitioner was initially appointed as the Brand Executive with the respondent company at Ajmer. He was further given additional charge of the office at Ahmedabad in addition to his duties at Ajmer vide order dated 07.11.2009. Later on, vide the order dated 01.02.2010, he was transferred to Ahmedabad as per the terms of his appointment order, and was directed to report there on 15.02.2010. According to the respondents, though the petitioner was relieved from his duties at Ajmer, he did not report at the Ahmedabad Office. Subsequently, his services were terminated vide the order dated 14.04.2010 as per Annexure-P-19. The said order of the termination was challenged by the petitioner by raising an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, and was registered as LCR 08/2011, the said reference case came to be allowed by the Labour Court vide the order dated 11.10.2012, whereby the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner, as per his position prior to his termination order dated 14.04.2010, with all backwages. The said award has been challenged by the respondents before this Court by filing the writ petition which is pending for disposal. There being no stay against the implementation of the said award, the petitioner filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said application was resisted by the respondent company by filing the reply, contending inter alia that the petitioner did not join at Ahmedabad, which was the place of his posting prior to his termination and therefore was not entitled to the backwages as prayed for by him. The Labour Court vide the impugned order dated 28.10.2014 held that there being dispute as to at which place the petitioner was required to report for his duty, at Ahmedabad or at Ajmer, the parties were permitted to lead their respective evidence in that regard. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel Mr. Amit Jindal for the petitioner taking the Court to the various documents and to the provisions of Section 33C(2), submitted that there being no provision permitting the parties to lead their evidence, the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is not sustainable. He further submitted that the only issue required to be decided by the Labour Court in the proceedings under Section 33C(2) is, whether the petitioner is entitled to the backwages for the period from 01.05.2013 to 13.04.2014, for which no evidence is required to be lead.
5. However, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that the petitioner prior to the order of termination and even after the award made by the Labour Court, did not report at the place of his posting i.e. Ahmedabad, and therefore the issue of his place of posting being in dispute, the Labour Court has rightly directed the parties to lead their evidence in this regard. He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of
6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the provisions of Section 33C(2), it appears that there is no bar against leading of evidence in the said provision. On the contrary, as per the said provision, if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit as might have been awarded to the workman, the same has to be decided by the Labour Court subject to the Rules made in that behalf. In the instant case, the Labour Court having passed the award on 11.10.2012 directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all backwages, and there being an issue raised by the respondents with regard to his last place of posting prior to his termination order dated 14.04.2010, the Labour Court has rightly permitted the parties to lead their respective evidence in that regard, for the purpose of deciding as to how much backwages the petitioner is being entitled to get, pursuant to the said award. In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Labour Court, which would call for the interference of this Court, more particularly exercising limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. In that view of the matter, the petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed. It is expected that the Labour Court shall decide the proceedings under Section 33C(2) as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Both the respective parties shall cooperate the Labour Court to complete the proceedings, as directed. By this order, the stay application also dismissed.
