Management of Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- order1. these petitions coming on for hearing upon perusing these petitions and the respective affidavits filed in support of w.p. no. 5863/96 on the file of this court, and the order of this court dated april 26, 1996 and made in w.m.p. no. 9125/96 and upon hearing the arguments of mr. king & patridge, advocate for the petitioner in w.m.p. no. 9125/96 and for the 2nd respondent in w.m.p. no. 11207 & 11208/96 and of mr. r. lawrence, advocate for the 2nd respondent in w.m.p. no. 9125/96 and for the petitioner in w.m.p. nos. 11207 & 11208/96 the court made the following order : the writ petitioner is pallavan transport corporation limited, and the second respondent is the workman employed in the petitioner-corporation as conductor. the petitioner framed certain charges against the second respondent in respect of certain disciplinary action and after holding the domestic enquiry, the second respondent was dismissed from the service by an order dated april 24, 1986. the second respondent preferred an industrial dispute in i.d. no. 1150 of 1989 and the labour court, madras ultimately held that the second respondent should be reinstated with 50% of the backwages from the date of the order of dismissal till the date of the award. interim stay was granted by this court on april 26, 1996 in w.m.p. 9125 of 1996. the second respondent filed a petition to vacate the interim stay granted by this court on april 26, 1996 and also a petition for a direction directing the second respondent to pay monthly wages at rs. 2600/- per month under section 17b of the industrial disputes act, 1947. so far as the prayer of reinstatement is concerned, the writ petitioner as per letter dated july 18, 1996 in memo. no. 5031/ls/(cm)ii/ptc/89, has permitted the second respondent to join duty immediately without prejudice to the contention of the writ petitioner in the writ petition. learned counsel for the second respondent has stated that the second respondent also expressed his willingness to join duty as conductor. in view of the letter of the writ petitioner, permitting the second respondent to join duty, the question of ordering reinstatement does not arise.2. in so far as the question of payment of monthly salary under section 17b of the act is concerned, the petitioner has, in the said letter, undertaken to pay the salary at an appropriate level in the revised scale of pay from the date of joining duty. in view of the offer made by the petitioner to pay the salary to the second respondent at an appropriate level in the revised scale of pay from the date of joining duty, the questioning of ordering payment of monthly salary under section 17b of the act does not also arise. no doubt, the learned counsel for the second respondent strongly placed reliance on a decision of the rajasthan high court in the mia. co. ltd. v. the central indl. tri. jaipur & anr. 1995 i llj 186 wherein the rajasthan high court has held that an absolute stay is neither permissible nor can be granted in the light of the provisions of section 17b of i.d. act and the workman should not be permitted to starve because the other party wants to take further proceedings by way of appeal or otherwise and the workman must be permitted to draw full wages at the rate of wages last drawn by him. since the writ petitioner has undertaken to pay the wages at the appropriate level in the revised scale of pay from the date of joining duty, consideration of granting absolute stay denying the benefit under section 17b of the industrial disputes act to the second respondent does not arise in the facts of the case. in so far as the question of payment of wages is concerned, in terms of the award, the approximate 50 per cent of the backwages payable to the second respondent for the period from april 29, 1986 to july 18, 1996 has been determined by the writ petitioner at rs. 1,51,000.00. learned counsel for the second respondent does not seriously dispute the correctness of the figure. the writ petitioner is a public sector undertaking and i am of the view that it may not be necessary to order the deposit of the entire sum in the labour court so that the labour court may invest the same in a nationalised bank. if the money is kept in the petitioner-corporation, the money will be available to the corporation for the purpose of its operational expenses and the cash flow will also be maintained. further, the right of the second respondent to get the money in the event of his success in the writ petition, will also be not lost, because the petitioner-corporation is a public sector undertaking. in these circumstances, i direct the petitioner to pay the interest, at the rate of 10% on the above said sum prevailing at the bank rate to the second respondent. the petitioner-corporation is directed to send the interest for every quarter to the name and address of the second respondent to be furnished by the second respondent or it is also open to the second respondent to collect the same on furnishing proper receipt. consequently, the order in w.m.p. 9125 of 1996 is modified and w.m.ps. 11207 and 11208 of 1996 are ordered accordingly.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. These petitions coming on for hearing upon perusing these petitions and the respective affidavits filed in support of W.P. No. 5863/96 on the file of this Court, and the order of this Court dated April 26, 1996 and made in W.M.P. No. 9125/96 and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. King & Patridge, Advocate for the petitioner in W.M.P. No. 9125/96 and for the 2nd Respondent in W.M.P. No. 11207 & 11208/96 and of Mr. R. Lawrence, Advocate for the 2nd Respondent in W.M.P. No. 9125/96 and for the petitioner in W.M.P. Nos. 11207 & 11208/96 the Court made the following order :

The writ petitioner is Pallavan Transport Corporation Limited, and the second respondent is the workman employed in the petitioner-Corporation as conductor. The petitioner framed certain charges against the second respondent in respect of certain disciplinary action and after holding the domestic enquiry, the second respondent was dismissed from the service by an order dated April 24, 1986. The second respondent preferred an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 1150 of 1989 and the Labour Court, Madras ultimately held that the second respondent should be reinstated with 50% of the backwages from the date of the order of dismissal till the date of the award. Interim stay was granted by this Court on April 26, 1996 in W.M.P. 9125 of 1996. The second respondent filed a petition to vacate the interim stay granted by this Court on April 26, 1996 and also a petition for a direction directing the second respondent to pay monthly wages at Rs. 2600/- per month under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. So far as the prayer of reinstatement is concerned, the writ petitioner as per letter dated July 18, 1996 in Memo. No. 5031/LS/(CM)II/PTC/89, has permitted the second respondent to join duty immediately without prejudice to the contention of the writ petitioner in the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the second respondent has stated that the second respondent also expressed his willingness to join duty as Conductor. In view of the letter of the writ petitioner, permitting the second respondent to join duty, the question of ordering reinstatement does not arise.

2. In so far as the question of payment of monthly salary under section 17B of the Act is concerned, the petitioner has, in the said letter, undertaken to pay the salary at an appropriate level in the revised scale of pay from the date of joining duty. In view of the offer made by the petitioner to pay the salary to the second respondent at an appropriate level in the revised scale of pay from the date of joining duty, the questioning of ordering payment of monthly salary under Section 17B of the Act does not also arise. No doubt, the learned counsel for the second respondent strongly placed reliance on a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in The MIA. Co. Ltd. v. The Central Indl. Tri. Jaipur & Anr. 1995 I LLJ 186 wherein the Rajasthan High Court has held that an absolute stay is neither permissible nor can be granted in the light of the provisions of Section 17B of I.D. Act and the workman should not be permitted to starve because the other party wants to take further proceedings by way of appeal or otherwise and the workman must be permitted to draw full wages at the rate of wages last drawn by him. Since the writ petitioner has undertaken to pay the wages at the appropriate level in the revised scale of pay from the date of joining duty, consideration of granting absolute stay denying the benefit under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act to the second respondent does not arise in the facts of the case. In so far as the question of payment of wages is concerned, in terms of the award, the approximate 50 per cent of the backwages payable to the second respondent for the period from April 29, 1986 to July 18, 1996 has been determined by the writ petitioner at Rs. 1,51,000.00. Learned counsel for the second respondent does not seriously dispute the correctness of the figure. The writ petitioner is a Public Sector Undertaking and I am of the view that it may not be necessary to order the deposit of the entire sum in the Labour Court so that the Labour Court may invest the same in a nationalised Bank. If the money is kept in the petitioner-Corporation, the money will be available to the Corporation for the purpose of its operational expenses and the cash flow will also be maintained. Further, the right of the second respondent to get the money in the event of his success in the writ petition, will also be not lost, because the petitioner-Corporation is a public sector undertaking. In these circumstances, I direct the petitioner to pay the interest, at the rate of 10% on the above said sum prevailing at the bank rate to the second respondent. The petitioner-Corporation is directed to send the interest for every quarter to the name and address of the second respondent to be furnished by the second respondent or it is also open to the second respondent to collect the same on furnishing proper receipt. Consequently, the order in W.M.P. 9125 of 1996 is modified and W.M.Ps. 11207 and 11208 of 1996 are ordered accordingly.