High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 4012/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K.SHARMA Heard Ms B Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms A Bhatta charjee, the learned counsel representing the respondents 3 and 4. I have also h eard Ms R Phukan, the learned Statecounsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 . This writ petition is directed against the Annexure-XV order dated 5.5.2005 pass ed by the Certificate Officer, Collector’s Office, Dibrugarh upholding the certi ficate filed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, by which an amount of Rs.10 ,84,277/- was certified to be payable by the Management of the petitioner to the workman i.e. the respondent No.3. It is the said amount in respect of which the petitioner has raised dispute, apart from challenging the jurisdiction of Assis tant Labour Commissioner to issue the certificate under Section 33(C) of the Ind ustrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman in question was dismissed from service pursuant to a domestic enquir y. He was so dismissed by order dated 16.4.1979. An industrial dispute being rai sed, the matter went up to the Labour Court which passed the Award dated 3.8.198 3 interfering with the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the work man in service with full back wages. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Award, the Management preferred the writ petiti on being Civil Rule No. 20/84, which was disposed of by order dated 26.9.1989 re manding the matter back to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication. After such remand, a fresh Award was passed on 25.2.1993 to the same effect i.e. reinstatement of the workman in service with full back wages . Being aggrieved by the said Award, the Management filed the writ petition being Civil Rule No. 3 007/1993, which was dismissed by judgment dated 6.2.1997. Thereafter the Managem ent preferred a Writ Appeal accompanied by an application for condonation of del ay. The delay condonation petition having been dismissed by order dated 11.9.200 0, the Appeal also stood dismissed. When the matter attained finality in the above manner the petitioner Management by Annexure-IV letter dated 5.7.2001 addressed to the Secretary, ACKS offered fi nal settlement dues of Rs.4,69,895/- to the workman. However, the ACKS by its le tter dated 16.8.2009 expressed its non-agreement to the offer made and demanded further payment of PF Contribution (Rs.21,922.33/-), Bonus (Rs.27,897/-) and Med ical expenses (Rs.26,447.38). In view of the above differences the respondent No.4 i.e. ACKS approached the A ssistant Labour Commissioner under Section 33(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In response to notice issued by the said authority the Management submitt ed its written reply denying the claim made on behalf of the workman. By Annexur e-VII letter dated 11.8.2003, the Management intimated the workman that the tota l amount payable to him inclusive of PF Contribution, Bonus and Gratuity was Rs. 5,58,056.20. By the said letter it was further intimated that an amount of Rs.1. 10 lacs would be adjusted from the amount as the said amount i.e. Rs.1.10 lacs w as already paid to the workman. The whole dispute now arises in view of the claim made by the workman for paymen t of interest on the dues, as shown in paragraph-9 of the writ petition. The wor kman has claimed interest @ Rs.12/- on Rs.5,07,330.12 w.e.f. 5.5.1997. Interest has also been claimed @ Rs.10/- for 13 years w.e.f. 31.3.1990. The interest clai med on both the grounds stands at Rs.3,98,254.05 and Rs.1,01,000.90 respectively . While Ms B Sarma, the learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that t here is no question of payment of interest as per the Award and the order passed by this Court, Ms A Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel representing the workman submits that interest is inbuilt in case of delayed payment. She has also refer red to the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act.
Legal Reasoning
The above submission made by the learned counsel for the parties will have to b e considered in terms of the Award in question. Answering the particular referen ce pertaining to dismissal of the workman from service, the learned Labour Court posed the award in question. as to the relief the workman was entitled to and i t was held that he was entitled to full wages deeming to have continued in the s ervice till he had attained the age of superannuation. There was no order for pa yment of interest. The said Award was upheld by this Court by judgment dated 6.2 .1997 passed in Civil Rule No.3007/1993. In the said judgment also there was no direction for payment of interest. As noted above, the Writ Appeal, that was pre ferred by the petitioner, was dismissed on 11.9.2000. After the aforesaid finality to the matter, the Management by its letter dated 5 .7.2001 intimated the ACKS about the entitlement of the workman and also asked f or acceptance. However, dispute arose between the parties and the matter went to the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Thereafter, he issued the certificate the Ce rtificate officer passed the impugned order dated 5.5.2005. As indicated above, the Management itself by its letter dated 11.3.2003 offered the workman the amount of Rs.5,58,056.20. Having regard to the aforesaid Award and the order of this Court, I am of the co nsidered opinion that the workman is not entitled to interest, as has been calcu lated by him. Both the learned Court and this Court having not awarded interest in respect of the full back wages, interest could not have been awarded by the a uthority. Accordingly, the impugned certificate and the order dated 5.5.2005 sta nd interfered with. However, it is hereby provided that the workman would be ent itled to another sum of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the amount indicated by the Management in its Annexure-VII letter dated 11.8.2003. Whatever amount is now required to be paid by the petitioner Management to the w orkman, the same shall be paid as expeditiously as possible but at any rate not later than 31.5.2013. While making the arrear payment the payments which have al ready been made shall stand deducted. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.