Bombay High Court
M.S.R.T.C. Thru. Divn. ... vs Tulsiram Mahadeo Shirbhate on 9 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp1244.08
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1244/2008
M.S.R.T.C., through the
Divisional Controller,
Wardha Division, Wardha
M.S.R.T.C ..Petitioner.
..Versus..
Tulsiram Mahadeo Shirbhate,
R/o Kalamb, Tah. & Distt. Yavatmal.
ig ..Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------
Shri S.C. Mehadia, Advocate for the petitioner.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 9.6.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri S.C. Mehadia, Advocate for the petitioner. None appears for the
respondent.
2. The respondent - employee was in the employment of the
petitioner - employer as Driver. The respondent was dismissed from service on 17 th
April, 1995. This order of dismissal was challenged by the employee in Complaint
ULP No.332/1995 which was allowed by the Labour Court by the order dated 12 th
May, 1997. The Labour Court directed the employer to reinstate the employee with
continuity of service and to pay the back wages from 17 th April, 1995 till date of his
reinstatement.
2 wp1244.08
The employer challenged the above order in Revision ULPN No.251/1997
which was partly allowed. The order passed by the Labour Court directing the
employer to reinstate the employee with continuity of service was confirmed.
However, the directions given by the Labour Court to the employer to pay the
amount of back wages was set aside. The Industrial Court recorded that the
employee was not entitled for back wages from 17 th April, 1995 till 12th May, 1997.
After the decision by the Industrial Court, the employee was reinstated on
11th/12th November, 1998.
3. The employer had not paid the amount of back wages for the period from
13th May, 1997 till 12th November, 1998 and, therefore, the employee filed complaint
before the Industrial Court claiming arrears of wages from 13 th May, 1997 till 12th
November, 1998 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
The Industrial Court has allowed the complaint by the impugned order.
4. The order passed by the Industrial Court is challenged on the ground that the
order passed by the Labour Court in Complaint ULP No.332/1995 directing the
employer to reinstate the employee and which was maintained by the Industrial
Court was challenged by the employer before this Court in writ petition and it was
pending and, therefore, it was not appropriate for the Industrial Court to direct the
payment of back wages for the period from 13 th May, 1997 till 12th November, 1998.
3 wp1244.08
The other ground raised by the petitioner is that the employee had not placed any
material on the record to show that he approached the employer for joining the duty,
after the decision of the Labour Court. The order passed by the Industrial Court
granting the interest to the employee on the amount of back wages is challenged on
the ground that the Industrial Court should not have granted interest on the amount
of back wages as the order of reinstatement itself was challenged by the employer.
5.
I have gone through the documents placed on the record of the writ petition.
The relevant facts are not disputed by either of the parties. Considering the
directions of the Industrial Court recorded in the order passed in Revision ULPN
No.251/1997 that the employee is not entitled for back wages for the period from
17th April, 1995 till 12th May, 1997, in my view, the Industrial Court has not committed
any error in concluding that the employer is liable to pay the back wages to the
employee from 13th May, 1997 till 12th November, 1998.
The ground raised by the petitioner that the Industrial Court should not have
directed the employer to pay the back wages as the order passed by the Labour
Court and maintained by the Industrial Court in the earlier round of litigation directing
the employer to reinstate the employee was challenged before this Court in writ
petition is of no consequence. It is recorded that the employee was reinstated on
11th/12th November, 1998 pursuant to the order passed by the Labour Court and
maintained by the Industrial Court in the earlier round of litigation. The petitioner
4 wp1244.08
has not placed any material on the record to show that the order passed by the
Industrial Court in Revision ULPN No.251/1997 was stayed by this Court in the writ
petition filed by it.
The challenge to the direction given by the Industrial Court regarding
payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum also does not require any
consideration as the petitioner has not shown any justification for not paying the
amount of back wages to the respondent - employee inspite of the order passed by
the Labour Court and maintained by the Industrial Court in the earlier round of
litigation.
The petitioner shall pay the amount of back wages for the period from 13 th
May, 1997 till 12th November, 1998 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum,
the interest being chargeable from 18 th November, 2005 (i.e. from the date
subsequent to the passing of the order by the Industrial Court) till 5 th March, 2008 on
which date this Court granted interim order. The amount shall be paid to the
respondent - employee within 2 months failing which the petitioner will be liable to
pay interest at 9% per annum on the amount from today till the amount is paid to the
respondent.
The writ petition is dismissed with above clarification. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
