S.J. Kathawalla, J.@mdashHeard counsel for the parties.
Rule.
2. The learned Advocate appearing fo the Respondents waives service.
3. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith and the Petition is taken up for hearing.
4. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner workman has impugned the order dated 5th May 2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, dismissing the Complaint (ULP) No. 500 of 2007 filed by the Petitioner.
5. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present Writ Petition are briefly set out hereunder:
6. The Petitioner joined the services of the Respondents in the year 1976 and was working in the Accounts Department. He was initially designated as a �Clerk� and in the year 1979 was re-designated as �Accountant�. His last drawn wages were Rs. 3,155/- per month.
7. The services of the Petitioner were terminated by the Respondents on 8th April 1981 with effect from 23rd May 1981 upon an allegation for misappropriation of funds. The Respondents also filed a criminal complaint against the Petitioner which ended in an order of discharge of the Petitioner passed on 28th April 1992 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, boreveli Court.
8. According to the Petitioner, even after receiving the order of discharge passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, boreveli, Mumbai, he requested the Respondents to reinstate him in service. However, the Respondents refused to do soon the ground that the criminal case was continued against the co-accused Pankajlal Patel. He, therefore, was left with no option but to wait until the criminal case was concluded against the co-accused on 3rd June 2003 resulting in acquittal of the co-accused.
9. After the said co-accused was acquitted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, boreveli Court, the Petitioner once again approached the Respondents seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages and other benefits. Since the Respondents did not concede to the demand of the Petitioner, an industrial dispute as contemplated u/s 2(k) read with Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, was filed. The conciliation proceedings held in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act resulted in failure and therefore, the dispute was referred for adjudication before the Eighth Labour Court, Mumbai which was numbered as Reference (IDA) No. 517 of 2004.
10. The Eighth Labour Court, Mumbai passed an Award dated 20th March 2007 allowing the Reference and holding that the Petitioner was entitled to receive legal dues on the date of his joining till his superannuation on 10th August 2003. The Labour Court, Mumbai, also held that the Petitioner was entitled to receive lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- from the date of raising his demand i.e. 21st November 2003 till the date of passing of the Award. The Petitioner thereafter called upon the Respondents to comply with the order. The Respondents admittedly sent a cheque of Rs. 1,29,575/- to the Petitioner comprising of the compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- and Rs. 4,575/-towards his legal dues, which the Petitioner accepted under protest. The Petitioner filed the complaint u/s 28 and 30 of the MRTU and PULP Act, alleging unfair labour practice on the part of the Respondents under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act, praying inter-alia for a direction to the Respondents to implement the order dated 20th March 2007 in its entirety as per the directions contained therein. According to the Petitioner, under the said Award passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai, dated 20th March 2007, the Petitioner was also entitled to back wages from the date of the termination of his employment i.e. from 22nd May 1981. The Industrial Court by its judgment and order dated 5th May 2009 dismissed the complaint of the Petitioner. The Petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the Industrial Court has filed the present Writ Petition impugning the same. 11. The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner has tried to interpret the Award passed by the Eighth Labour Court dated 20th March 2007 to mean that over and above, the compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- granted by the Labour Court, the Labour Court has also ordered the Respondents to pay back wages to the Petitioner from the date of his termination. The learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents has disputed the contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner and has submitted that the Award dated 20th March 2007 has been correctly interpreted by the Industrial Court thereby dismissing the complaint filed by the Petitioner. It is submitted that the Award of the Labour Court dated 20th March 2007 speaks for itself. 12. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the Petitioner and the Respondents. I have perused the Award passed by the Labour Court dated 20th March 2007 as well as the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 5th May 2009. Admittedly, the Petitioner had contended before the Labour Court that he is entitled to back wages from the date of the termination of his employment. The Labour Court has considered the claim of the Petitioner as regards the back wages in two parts, i.e. the period from the date of his termination on 22nd May 1981 upto the date of his superannuation on 10th August 2003 and the period after the Petitioner approached the Government Labour Officer by raising a demand on 21st November 2003 till the date of passing of the Award.
13. As regards the first period namely 22nd May 1981 to 10th August 2003, the Labour Court has categorically held in paragraph 14 of its Award as follows:
14. ...The second party worker had knowledge that his services are terminated on 22.5.1981 illegally without conducting a fair inquiry as per his first letter dated 17.7.1981, therefore from the date of his termination till he raised demand with the Conciliation Officer of Govt. Labour Officer on 22.11.2003, the second party has slept over his rights and kept on making correspondence and he did not work hence he is not entitled for any back wages for the said period but the second party will be entitled to his legal dues till date of superannuation on 10.8.2003.
Thus, the Labour Court has reached a categorical finding that the Petitioner is not entitled to back wages for the first period but will be entitled to only his legal dues.
14. As regards the second period i.e. from 21st November 2003 till the date of the passing of the Award, the Labour Court has in its Award held as follows:
14. ...Coming to the period after approaching the Govt. Labour Office by raising demand on 21.11.2003 till the date of passing this award...
20...
Therefore, the second party is entitled to only lump sum compensation for the period from the date of raising the demand with the Govt. i.e. 21.11.2003 till date of passing this Award i.e. 26.3.2007 i.e. 4 years at Rs. 1,25,000/-. Accordingly, I pass the following award:
AWARD
1. Reference is allowed.
2. The second party is entitled to receive legal dues from the date of his joining till date of superannuation i.e. 10.8.2003.
3. Second party is also entitled to receive lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- from the date of raising his demand i.e. 21.11.2003 till date of passing the award.
4. Copy of Award be sent to Government.
15. From the aforesaid Award passed by the Labour Court, there remains no doubt that for the first period, the Labour Court has ordered the Respondents to pay to the Petitioner legal dues from the date of his joining till the date of superannuation i.e. 10th August 2003 and has expressly rejected the claim of back wages. As regards the second period, the Labour Court has directed the Respondents to pay only a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- from the date of raising his demand i.e. 21st November 2003 till the date of passing of the Award. It is clear that the lumpsum amount granted by the Labour Court is in lieu of back wages from the date of raising of the demand on 21st November 2003 till the date of passing of the Award. The Petitioner is not entitled to any back wages in addition to the lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/-. Admittedly, the Petitioner has not impugned the Award passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai, dated 20th March 2007. The Industrial Court, Mumbai, is therefore, correct in dismissing the complaint filed by the following observations:
...As per the Award, the complainant is entitled to lumpsum compensation for the period from the date of raising the demand till the date of passing the award alongwith legal dues. There is no direction for the payment of back wages to the complainant from the date of termination till the date of his retirement as claimed by the complainant. It is not the case of the complainant that the Respondents have not paid him legal dues and lumpsum compensation as per the award. Considering these aspects, it cannot be said that the respondents have failed to implement the award dated 20.3.2007 passed by the Labour Court as alleged.
16. Under the circumstances, it cannot be held that the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 5th May 2009 is perverse in any manner. The said order correctly interprets the Award passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai dated 20th March 2007. The Rule is therefore, discharged and the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
