Seventh Day Adventist Inter ... vs Assistant Labour Commissioner & ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 2239 Del

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                AT NAINITAL
      Writ Petition No. 2419 of 2011 (M/S)

Seventh Day Adventist Inter College .....Petitioner
                       Versus
Assistant Labour Commissioner & others
                                    .....Respondents
                       With
      Writ Petition No. 2420 of 2011 (M/S)

Seventh Day Adventist Inter College .....Petitioner
                       Versus
Assistant Labour Commissioner & others
                                    .....Respondents
                       With
      Writ Petition No. 2421 of 2011 (M/S)

Seventh Day Adventist Inter College .....Petitioner
                       Versus
Assistant Labour Commissioner & others
                                    .....Respondents
                       With
      Writ Petition No. 2422 of 2011 (M/S)

Seventh Day Adventist Inter College .....Petitioner
                       Versus
Assistant Labour Commissioner & others
                                    .....Respondents
                       With
      Writ Petition No. 2423 of 2011 (M/S)

Seventh Day Adventist Inter College .....Petitioner
                       Versus
Assistant Labour Commissioner & others
                                    .....Respondents
                       With
      Writ Petition No. 2424 of 2011 (M/S)

Seventh Day Adventist Inter College .....Petitioner
                       Versus
Assistant Labour Commissioner & others
                                    .....Respondents
                                       2




                                   With
         Writ Petition No. 2425 of 2011 (M/S)

Seventh Day Adventist Inter College .....Petitioner
                       Versus
Assistant Labour Commissioner & others
                                    .....Respondents
                                   With
         Writ Petition No. 2426 of 2011 (M/S)

Seventh Day Adventist Inter College .....Petitioner
                       Versus
Assistant Labour Commissioner & others
                                    .....Respondents
Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.C. Arya, Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for respondent No.4.

Hon'ble Alok Singh, J.

In all these writ petitions identical questions of fact and law are involved, therefore, all these writ petitions were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

Learned Labour Court, vide award dated 24.11.2009, was pleased to reinstate all the workmen without backwages, however, with the stipulation that from the date of the award workman would be deemed to have been reinstated and would be entitled for all benefits of the service from the date of award.

As per the employer, after the award dated 24.11.2009 was passed by the Labour Court, Haridwar, different letters were issued to the workmen to come and give joining, however, workmen did not report back and failed to join. Workmen, thereafter, moved an application before the Deputy Labour Commissioner under Section 6-H of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act

seeking direction to the employer to pay wages to the workmen from 24.11.2009, i.e. date of award till July, 2010.

Learned Assistant Labour Commissioner on 11.04.2011 has passed order as under :-

"Workmen present. Employer present. Employer moved an application dated 11.04.2011 saying that petitioner issued several letters to the workmen calling them to come and join the duties, however, workmen failed to join the duties. While as per the workmen, no such letters were ever received by the workmen. Thus, all the workmen are directed to obtain photostat copy of the letters available on the record of the Assistant Commissioner and to immediately go and give joining."

Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute the order dated 11.04.2011. However, learned counsel for the parties fairly submitted that workman joined duties on 9th May, 2011. Now very important question arises in the present writ petition :-

As to whether workmen are entitled for the wages from the date of the award or shall be entitled for the wages from the date workmen gave joining, i.e., 9th May, 2011.

As per the award dated 24.11.2009, workmen would be deemed in service from the date of award and would be entitled for the wages from the date of the award. In my considered opinion, none can be permitted to take benefit of his own wrong. Therefore,

the only reasonable interpretation of the award dated 24.11.2011 would be if, workman was not allowed to give joining by the employer for no fault of the workmen, workmen would be deemed in service from the date of award and would be entitled for all the wages from the date of award. However, if workmen for no fault on the part of the employer himself failed to give joining despite letter being issued by the employer, then workmen shall be entitled for the wages from the date he gave joining pursuant to the award.

Admittedly, workmen gave joining on 9th May, 2011, therefore, workmen are entitled for the wages from the date they gave joining. In the present case as per the order dated 11.04.2011, workmen did not join despite several letters issued by the employer and ultimately were directed to join and they gave joining on 9th May, 2011. Therefore, workmen are entitled for the wages from 9th May, 2011.

At this stage, learned counsel for the workmen submits that employer is not making payment of even minimum wages from 9th May, 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that entire arrears from the date of joining, i.e. 9th May, 2011 shall be released in favour of the workmen within eight weeks from today after adjusting the amount, if already paid to the workmen.

All these writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

(Alok Singh, J.) Dated 2nd May, 2014 Shiv