Pune Municipal Transport vs Maruti Nana Chaware
2002 Latest Caselaw 61 Bom

JUDGMENT

Nishita Mhatre, J.

1. This petition challenges the order of the Labour Court wherein an amount of Rs. 58,643.24 has been allowed to the respondent as difference in subsistence allowance and bonus.

2. The petitioner employed respondent No. 1 on a temporary basis. On 15-3-1980, when the respondent was in service, a strike was called and the respondent participated in the strike. As a result, the respondent was suspended from the work on 20-3-1980 and was reverted to the post of bus driver on 1-11-1980. An enquiry was held against the respondent and he was dismissed from service with effect from 13-6-1981. The respondent filed an appeal with the Transport Committee, which directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent as a driver on the basic pay of Rs. 425/- per month. The annual increment for one year was to be withheld by way of punishment. The respondent had simultaneously raised in industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication by an Award of 21-3-1985. The Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent as a starter with continuity of service and full back-wages.

3. Aggrieved by this order, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner herein challenging the Award and was dismissed by this Court. The petitioner then complied with the Award of the Labour Court by reinstating the respondent as a starter. However, the calculations of the back-wages payable to the respondent were not correctly made and, therefore, the respondent called upon the petitioner to pay him the amounts payable under the award. On 3-9-1986, an order was issued by the petitioner wherein the manner of calculation of the difference in basic wages was shown. The respondent called upon the petitioner to pay the difference alongwith other allowances which he was entitled to as a consequence of the Award of the Labour Court. Since the petitioner failed to accede to the request of the respondent, he filed an application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 28-11-1988. He claimed an amount of Rs. 11,342.24 as difference in subsistence allowance for the period from 20-3-1980 to 13-6-1981, Rs. 44,600/- as the difference in wages payable to him for the period from 16-6-1981 to 1-12-1984 on account of being reinstated as a Starter and Rs. 2,702/- as bonus for the year 1980-81 and 1981-82.

4. A reply was filed by the petitioner contending that all amounts due and payable to the respondent have been paid and, therefore, the application should be dismissed. The respondent examined himself before the Labour Court in support of his claim. The petitioner examined their accounts clerk. The order of the Labour Court has taken into account the evidence led on behalf of both the parties both oral and documentary, and has come to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled to Rs. 58,643.24 as claimed by him.

5. The Labour Court, on the basis of the evidence led before it, held that there was no material to show that the amount had been paid to the respondent. The petitioner claimed to have paid to the respondent pursuant to their calculations the amount of Rs. 9,696.99 which also has not been believed by the Labour Court since there was no signature of the respondent to show that he had in fact received this amount. The Labour Court has not accepted the evidence of the petitioner, who claimed on the basis of the cash book, that Rs. 9,696.99 was paid to the respondent. This is rightly so since the cash book does not disclose the signature of the respondent showing that he had in fact received the amount. In fact, the evidence of the petitioner shows that the self-cheque was prepared on 20-12-1980 for an amount of Rs. 9,696.99. The witness for the petitioner claimed that the amount was paid to the respondent in cash, on 20-12-1986 but the original bill was not traceable. A working-sheet was produced on record and the witnesses also claimed that a supplementary bill of Rs. 7,819.57 was also raised and paid to the respondent. However, the original bills were not traceable and only duplicates had been produced before the Labour Court. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the duplicates had not been prepared from the original ones and that the signature of the applicant had not been obtained to indicate that the amount paid to him. The witness also did not know whether subsistence allowance and bonus was paid to the respondent in accordance with law.

6. Mr. Ketkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently urged that by allowing the application, the Labour Court has directed them to pay an amount which has already been paid to the respondent and since the petitioner is a public body, this would lead to harsh consequences. He submits that it is impossible that the respondent would not have been paid the amount as claimed by the petitioner as there was no need for the petitioner to go through the exercise of calculating the amounts due and payable to the respondent as per the Award of the Labour Court. The entries in the Cash book also show that a cheque was prepared for an amount of Rs. 9,696.99 and this indicates that this amount was paid to the respondent as it was the only amount due and payable to the respondent in respect of the difference in salary as a Driver and a Starter. He also submits that the other claims allowed by the Labour Court regarding subsistence allowances is not maintainable. As regards the bonus, he accepts that this amount would be paid to the respondent as other workmen had been paid bonus.

7. Mr. Nargolkar, on the other hand, for the respondent, submits that no interference is called for with the Award of the Labour Court. He places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Indian Overseas Bank v. Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers Union, and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (B.N. Srikrishna and R.P. Desai, JJ.) in R.P. Sawant v. Bajaj Auto Ltd., L.P.A. 19 of 2000 and L.P.A. 20 of 2000. He further submits that all the documents produced by the petitioner have been considered by the Labour Court and since they were not proved, therefore, no fault to be found with the order of the Labour Court. As regards subsistence allowances, he submits that initially the respondent was paid only 50% of his wages as subsistence allowance whereas he was entitled to 75% of his wages after a period of 3 months from his suspension and full wages after six months of his suspension. It is submitted that the same has not been paid to the respondent. He further submits that the calculations which the respondent had tendered alongwith his claim have not been disputed by the petitioner in the written statement and the petitioner has only mentioned that all the accounts due and payable to the respondent have been paid to him.

8. On going through the material placed before me, I find that no fault can be found with the order of the Labour Court. The adequacy of the evidence led by the petitioner on the question of arrears of wages leaves much to be desired. The inference which the Labour Court has drawn on the basis of this evidence cannot be interfered with. The petitioner has not been able to indicate in any manner whatsoever that the amounts were in fact received by the respondent. There is no evidence to show that the duplicate bills were made on the basis of the originals which had been issued nor is there any evidence to indicate that the amount of Rs. 9,696.99 which was drawn on a self-cheque was in fact paid to the respondent. I see no reason to interfere with this finding of the Labour Court. The working-sheet produced before the Labour Court has also not been proved as the witness has clearly stated that it is not known as to who is the author of the working-sheet nor has it been shown as to how the figure is arrived at.

9. In this view of the matter, the order of the Labour Court must be upheld. The respondent has already withdrawn the amounts deposited in this Court pursuant to the order passed at the time of admission of this writ petition. The balance amount shall be paid to the respondent within eight weeks from today.

10. In these circumstances of the case, writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.

11. Issuance of certified copy of this order is expedited.