M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Since in these two writ applications, the petitioners are aggrieved by part of the order dated 12.12.1994 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in M.J, Case No. 14 of 1990 and M.J. Case No. 16 of 1990 filed under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order.
2. The admitted facts are that petitioner was in the service of the respondent No. 2, M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co, Ltd. and was dismissed from service by order of the 5.6.1969 on the ground of his conviction in criminal case. The said order of conviction was however set aside by the High Court in terms of the judgment dated 25.7.1975 and he was acquitted from the charges. Petitioner then made a demand and raised industrial dispute for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service, which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court for adjudication vide Reference Case No. 20 of 1976. The Labour Court passed the Award dated 29.3.1978 in favour of the petitioner and he was directed to be reinstated with full back wages and other benefits. The said Award was affirmed upto Supreme Court. The petitioner was reinstated in service but he was not paid consequential benefits including arrears of salary. Petitioner thereafter filed two claini applications under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur which was registered as PW Case No. 8/78 and PW Case No. 8/79. The claim of the petitioner was allowed by the authority under the aforesaid Act. The respondents TISCO then filed appeal being M.A. No. 3/80 and 4/80 against the aforesaid order which were dismissed vide judgment dated 24.3.1990. In the aforementioned application filed under the Payment of Wages Act certain claims made by the petitioners was not entertained and therefore petitioners filed two applications under Section 33C(2) of the said Act 1947 which was registered as M.J. Case No. 14/90 and 16/90. The said applications were opposed by the respondents on various grounds. These two applications were ultimately disposed of by the Labour Court by passing the impugned order on12.12.1994 whereby the claim of the petitioners on certain heads were allowed but some of the claims have been rejected. Petitioners then aggrieved by the respective part of the order of the Labour Court filed instant two writ applications.
3. Mr. K.N. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner workmen on the one hand submitted that part of the impugned order passed by the Labour Court refusing to allow Leave Travel Assistance, Canteen benefits and interest on the money so with-held by the respondents is absolutely illegal and unjustified. Learned counsel submitted that when the petitioner was reinstated with all consequential benelits he is entitled to get Leave Travel benefits and also Canteen benefits which has been illegally disallowed by the Labour Court.
4. Mr. K.B. Sinha learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent TISCO on the other hand firstly submitted that the application filed before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act was itself barred by the principles of res judicata in view of the fact that petitioner had earlier filed application for the same benefits under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act. Learned counsel further submitted that the Labour Court has committed serious illegality in so far as he entertained the claim of the petitioner regarding medical facility, transport facility etc. when as a matter of fact petitioner was not entitled to because he was not in the service during the relevant time.
5. First of all, I would like to decide the question as to whether the second application filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act is barred by principles of res Judicata. It appears that when the petitioner was not paid consequential benefits after he was reinstated in service two applications were filed under the Payment of Wages Act claiming back wages and other benefits. Since the provisions of Payment of Wages Act relates to non-payment of deducted or delayed wages only the Labour Court held that so far other benefits like medical facility, transport facility etc. are concerned these are not covered under the aforesaid Act and therefore claims of other benefitswere not entertained by the Labour Court. Petitioner had therefore no alternative but to file application under the Industrial Disputes Act for the recovery of those benefits. The Labour Court by passing the impugned reasoned order allowed the benefits like medical facility, transport facility and E.L. benefits but refused to allow Leave Travel Assistance and Incentive Bonus. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court rightly held that the application of the petitioners claiming other benefits under the I.D. Act is not barred by the principles of res judicata.
6. Next question that falls for considerations is as to whether the Labour Court was justified in allowing some of the claims and disallowing some of the claims by the impugned order. The Labour Court on the question of Payment of Medical benefits held as under :
'The learned lawyer for the opposite party has submitted that neither any Doctor has been examined nor any medical certificate or prescriptions have been filed to show that the applicant actually spent money on medical treatment of his family members therefore, the applicant is not entitled to receive any amount in this regard. It is true that no document for spending this amount has been filed but there is statement of applicant witness given on oath that there was sickness, treatment and expenditure as against the facts that opposite party has produced no evidence oral or documentary in its rebuttal. Applicant has stated that his father and mother fell ill and died during the said period and he spent money on their treatment according to his capacity. It does not appear to reason that the applicant would not spent this amount on the medical treatment of his family members including himself during the long period of ten years. I find no reason to disbelieve the statement of the applicant on this point. The applicant was deprived of this benefit for the long period of ten years due to illegal and unjustified termination. Considering all these things, I come to the conclusion is that the applicant is entitled toreceive the sum of Rs. 9,500/- as the cost of his treatment and treatment of eligible members of family.'
7. It is rather surprising as to how the Labour Court in absence of any documentary evidence i.e. cash memo bills regarding purchase of medicine by the petitioner came to the conclusion or assumed that petitioner might have spent money towards purchase of medicine etc. As noticed above, neither any doctor was examined nor any medical certificate or prescription was filed by the petitioner to show that he actually spent money on medical treatment of his family members. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court was not justified in allowing the amount claimed by the petitioner as the cost of his treatment and the treatment of his family members. So far other benefits which were allowed by the Labour Court in favour of the petitioner, I do not find any strong reason to differ with the findings of the Labour Court. In my view, other benefits were rightly allowed by the Labour Court. So far claim of leave travel and incentive bonus are concerned the Labour Court held as under :--
'The applicant has also claimed Rs. 120/- on account of Leave Travel Concession. According to the application, he was entitled to receive Rs. 120/- as Leave Travel Concession, according to the rule of the opposite Party. My attention was drawn towards Ext-8. Ext-8 is a letter of the management dated 8.3.1978 the management has arrived at an agreement with the Union in regard to their demands. This letter shows that according to agreement Leave Travel Assistance of Rs. 120/-was to be paid once in every two calendar year commencing from 1.1.1978. Therefore, according to this agreement the application was entitled to receive Rs. 120/- on this account for the period from 1.1.1978 to 1.1.1980. Admittedly the applicant was reinstated in February, 1979. The applicant should have filed petition before the management for Leave Travel Assistance after his reinstatement. There is no evidence to show that the applicant actually spent money on this account after 1.1.1978 till his reinstatement. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to receive Rs. 120/- as Leave Travel Assistance.'
8. So far claim of the petitioner regarding canteen benefit is concerned, the Labour Court held as under :--
'The last claim is about Canteen benefit. According to the applicant worker of the opposite party are entitled to subsidized food in the canteen of the opposite party and the difference between the cost on the same food in house and the market varied from Rs. 5 to 8 per meal. The applicant claimed benefit at the rate of Rs. 11/- per day during the said period of illegal and unjustified termination. It has been urged on behalf of the applicant while in service was entitled to get canteen benefit but he has been deprived of this benefit during the period of illegal termination. It has been submitted on behalf of the opposite party that canteen is established under the provision of Bihar Factory Act and Rules to provide food and snacks to the workers who worked in the factory, It was also submitted that applicant did not go to the factory during the said period and he is not entitled to receive any amount on this account.'
9. So far interest is concerned, the Labour Court held as under :--
'The applicant also claimed interest on a sum of Rs. 21,248/-. Which was deducted from wages of the applicant on account of Income Tax. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that no Income Tax was payable but a sum of Rs. 21,248/- was deducted from the arrears of wages on account of Income Tax which was not deposited in the Income Tax Department. The Company utilized this amount in its business hence the applicant should be given at least @ Rs. 15% from February 1979 till 27.7.1990 when the said money was deposited in the Income Tax Department. The learned lawyer for the opposite Party has submitted that the applicant had requested the opposite party to hold the deducted amount of Income Tax till the matter was finally decided and the opposite party remitted the said amount to the Income Tax Department immediately on final disposal of PW Cases in Appeal. He drew my attention towards the letter of the applicant dated 27.6.1979 which is Ext. A.Ext. 11 is certificate of deduction of Income Tax at source. This shows that out of the total gross salary Rs. 38,410/-97 paise was paid to the applicant in July 1979 and tax recovered Rs. 4,298/- was deposited on 27.8.1979. Balance amount of Rs. 58,088.94 paise was paid in July 1990 and balance of Income Tax Rs. 21,248/- was recovered and deposited on 27.7.1990. Ext. A is letter written by the applicant to the opposite party in which the applicant had requested the opposite party to keep the deducted amount of Income Tax in abeyance till the matter was finally decided. When the applicant himself requested the opposite party to keep the said amount in abeyance he can not be allow to claim interest on that amount. A person should not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. Hence the applicant is not entitled to receive any interest on that amount.
The applicant also claimed wages paid less due to wrong calculation. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the total claim in both P.W. cases was for Rs. 85,769.24 paid whereas the amount of arrears of wages calculated correctly works out to Rs. 96,500/- hence the applicant is entitled to receive Rs. 10,730/- as difference of wages on account of arrear of wages calculated on the lower side by the employer. On the other hand it was submitted on behalf of the opposite party that all the arrears of wages were paid to the applicant which was also admitted by him in his statement before this Court.
According to the applicant the amount of arrears of wages calculated correctly works out to Rs. 96,500/- Ext. 10 and 10(a) are details of arrear wages paid to the applicant. Ext. 11 is certificate of deduction of Income Tax at source. This document show that out of total gross salary Rs. 38,410.97 paise was paid to the applicant in July 1979and balance amount of Rs. 58,088.94 paise was paid in July 1990. Therefore it is clear that total gross salary Rs. 96,499.91 paise for the period June 1969 to February 1979 was paid to the applicant. Hence the applicant is not entitled to claim any wages on this account.'
10. It is therefore clear from the finding recorded by the Labour Court that petitioner was paid benefits of arrears of wages and therefore question of payment of interest does not arise. The Labour Court further came to the right conclusion that petitioner was not entitled to transport facility and earn leave benefit.
11. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do no find any merit in this writ application filed by the petitioner being CWJC No. 661/95R, which is accordingly dismissed.
12. So far CWJC No. 800/95R is concerned the same is allowed in part and the impugned order passed by the Labour Court allowing medical benefit to the petitioner is set aside to that extent. Rest of the claim awarded by the Labour Court in favour of the petitioner is affirmed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.