Judgment:
Arvind Kumar, J.
1. Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing order 4.8.2004, Annexure P-12,vide which claim statement filed by respondent-workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') has been accepted qua the wages for the period 29.9.1990 to 30.9.1991.
2. In the writ petition, petitioner, namely, The New Egerton Woolen Mills, Dhariwal (hereinafter referred to as the management) has averred that it appointed into service respondent No. 1, Ved Pal (hereinafter referred to as the workman). It is further averred that on 22.9.1990, while respondent-workman was working as T.A. Grade I, a joint report was given by Worster Master and Worsted Superintendent to the effect that respondent No. 1 workman is indulging in subversive behaviour, instigating the supervisory/clerical staff and creating terror in the minds of workers. This led to termination of services of respondent No. 1-workman on 28.9.1990 by the management by invoking the provisions Clause 19(A) of the Modified Standing Orders, by discharge simplicitor. However, on a mercy appeal by the workman, he was given fresh appointment with effect from 1.10.19-91 with the understanding that he will not seek legal remedy against termination of his services and shall remain loyal to the management. Further, as per decision of the petitioner-management dated 4.8.1991, the intervening period with effect from 29.9.1990 to 30.9.1991 was to be separately decided. Respondent-workman then made representation seeking decision for the aforesaid intervening period. On that representation, order dated 10.6.1992 was passed deciding thereby that the said intervening period be treated as leave without wages, with the reservation to consider the same towards reinstatement with back wages at later date subject to satisfactory report of work and conduct in future. Thereafter, respondent-management served upon the petitioner-management demand notice dated 19.8.1996 claiming wages for the intervening period but the consideration proceedings taken pursuant thereto failed. This led to filing of claim application under Section 33C(2) of the Act before the Labour Court. The learned Labour Court vide its order dated 4.8.2004 allowed the claim application in the manner indicated above. It is this order which is under challenged in the present writ petition.
3. Notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondent-workman. Upon appearance, no written statement has been filed on his behalf.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
5. A proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Act is a proceeding, generally, in the nature of an execution proceeding wherein the Labour Court calculates the amount of money due to a workman from his employer, or if the workman is entitled to any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the Labour Court proceeds to compute the benefit in terms of money. This calculation or computation follows upon an existing right to the money or benefit in view of its being previously adjudged, or, otherwise, duly provided for. In other words this provision applies where there is an enforceable existing right to receive a monetary benefit. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that upon reinstatement of the respondent-workman in service, his leave for the period for 29.9.1990 to 30.9.1991 was treated as extra-ordinary leave without wages. No doubt, in the meeting held by the management on 4.8.1991 (Annexure P-l) on the basis of which he was reinstated but the said intervening period was decided to be dealt with separately depending upon his work and conduct. Subsequently, in meeting dated 10.6.1992 though he was allowed continuity of service treating the said intervening period as leave without wages but with the reservation to consider the said intervening period towards reinstatement with back wages at a later date subject to report of satisfactory work and conduct in future but at no point of time any order was passed by virtue of which wages of the said intervening period were allowed. Rather, on the basis of subsequent minutes of meeting dated 4.8.1991, the management specifically ordered that the said period, i.e. from 29.9.1990 to 30.9.1991 be treated as leave without wages. The learned Labour Court has over stepped in the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Act to hold that when reinstatement has been ordered., the workman is entitled to wages of the said intervening period. There was no order in his favour awarding this amount which could be the basis of proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Act ibid. When wages of the intervening period have been expressly denied to the workman by the order of the competent Authority, this fact cannot be determined under Section 33C(2) of the Act as the workman has no pre-existing right.
In view of the above discussion, the present writ petition is allowed and order dated 4.8.2004(Annexure P-l2) stands set aside.