Anil Dev Singh - (1.) This is a writ petition challenging the order of theLabour Court, Delhi dated 5/10/1974 whereby the second respondent(workman) was held entitled to receive back wages for the period September 1,197 1/07/1973, at the rate of Rs. 144.00 p.m. amounting to Rs. 3,292.00, from thepetitioner (employer). Facts as appear from petition are as under:-
(2.) Petitioner is a manufacturer of Hosiery goods at Delhi. Respondent No. 2was working with the petitioner as a cutter. On 12/07/1972 respondent No. 2 filedan application before the Labour Court, Delhi, in the form of a "statement of claim",with the allegations inter-alia, that he was appointed as a cutter by the management on piece rate basis with effect from 19/10/1970, that the petitionerrefused to give him work from 1/09/1971 and that his monthly wagesranged between Rs. 250.00-350 per month. On 24/10/1992 statement of thesecond respondent was recorded by the Labour Court wherein he stated that hewas appointed as a cutter and was earning Rs. 250.00 to Rs. 350.00 per month on piece rate fbasis. On 18/07/1973 Labour Court made an award whereby it was inter-alia heldthat the second respondent was entitled to half the back wages from the date of hisremoval till 1/08/1973 and also directed that he will be continued in service.According to the award the monthly wages of the petitioner were required to becalculated by taking his three months average salary, preceding the date on whichhe was removed. It is the case of the petitioner that after the award, the secondrespondent was approached by the petitioner to join duty but he failed to do so andinstead filed an application under Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for short 'the Act'). However, the Labour Welfare Officer advised the saidrespondent to move an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. Consequently,the respondent moved an application under Section 33-C(2) before the LabourCourt. The Labour Court by its order dated 5/10/1974 directed the petitionerto continue the second respondent in service and to pay a sum of Rs. 3,292.00 to himfor the period for which he was refused work. The petitioner feeling aggrieved bythe order of the Labour Court, moved the present petition and this is how thematter is before this Court.
(3.) Mr. Aggarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits thatthe application of the second respondent under Section 33-C(2) before the LabourCourt was not maintainable inasmuch as the same was filed pursuant to the awardof the Labour Court and the respondent could have moved only under Section 33-C(1). It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the application lay to theCentral Government only as is provided in Section 33-C(1) itself.;