(1.) HEARD learned Advocate for the parties. The Petitioner opponent in Recovery Application No. 2 of 2002 of the Labour Court, Gandhidham, Kutch has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhuj -Kutch in Recovery Application No. 2 of 2000 on 24.4.2007 allowing Recovery Application and ordering that workman be paid Rs. 79,243/ - within 30 days from the date of the order and in case, if it is not paid then from 1.4.2007 12% interest shall be accrued thereon and Rs. 2,000/ - as costs.
(2.) THE facts in brief leading to the filing of the present petition are set out as under.
(3.) THE workman who is Respondent hereinabove, was constrained to raise industrial dispute as despite he was serving with the Petitioner for a period of 18 months in the year 1982 his services came to be terminated without following any procedure of law and the provisions contained in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the 'I.D. Act'). The dispute was referred to the competent Court wherein it was marked as Reference LCR No. 262 of 1991 which came to be renumbered as new Reference LCG No. 273 of 1996. The workman in that reference contended that despite his services were of 18 months and/or three quarters, were put to an end unceremoniously. The workman services were terminated on 16.12.1992. The workman was receiving daily wage of Rs. 11/ - per day. It is required to be noted at this stage that the workman though was aggrieved by the order of termination dated 16.12.1992 for the reasons best known to him could not raise industrial dispute and ultimately the dispute came to be raised in the year 1991. The Court framed issues and answered them accordingly and ultimately passed an order and award dated 26.11.1997 partly allowing reference and directing the present Petitioner to reinstate the workman on his original post or place with continuity of service but without back wages. As per the say of the workman as per the award, the competent authority issued order reinstating the workman but the sub -office working under the competent authority did not obey the order in its true spirit and though he was posted as 'Mukadam' he was not paid the wages which were admissible to the person on the post of 'Mukadam'. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this treatment the Petitioner workman had to prefer Recovery Application being Recovery Application No. 2 of 2000 interalia praying that the workman was entitled to receive wages in the scale of 'Mukadam' as it is pointed out from the Recovery Application Memo his deduction was Rs. 15,311/ - as evident from page No. 16 of the Recovery Application Memo. The Recovery Court came to the conclusion that there exists a post of 'Mukadam' he deserved to be given appropriate relief and hence, allowed the Recovery Application ordering payment of Rs. 79,243/ - to the workman to be paid to him by stipulated period failing which the interest was ordered to be paid @ 12% p.a. from 1.4.2007. This order of Recovery Application made on 24.4.2007 is the subject matter of scrutiny and challenge in the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.