- (1.) An award was made under the Industrial disputes Act that respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) should be reinstated and lie was to report for duty within 30 days from the date of publication of the award. As regards back wages it was stated that he was not entitled to any. however. Rs. 4000/- was awarded by way of compensation which the appellant is stated to have deposited and the respondent is stated to have withdrawn the same. The respondent also filed another writ petition claiming full back wages as against Rs. 4,000/- as compensation which had been given to him and that petition is stated to be still pending consideration. On July 24, 1987 an award is stated to have been published but the stand of the appellant is that he did not report to duty within the time stated by the Labour court and he reported but was not taken to duty on September 1, 1987.
(2.) The respondent filed an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial disputes Act claiming a sum of Rs. 6.500/- as wages for the period between August 21.1987 and December 31, 1987 @rs. L500/- per month. The Labour Court adjudicated the matter and passed an order directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 6,500/- computing the emoluments payable to him as rs. 1,500/- per month. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed against the award made by the Labour Court. Hence this appeal before us.
(3.) The contention put forth before us by mr. Nageshwar Rao, the learned Senior advocate appearing for the appellant relying upon the decision of this Court in Municipal corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Anr. 1995 (1) SCC 235 : 1995-I-LLJ-395 (SC) joined duty within a period of one month from the date of publication of the award made earlier and that he not having joined duty within that period he remained absent, he should be deemed to have abandoned the duty and in those circumstances, was not entitled to claim any wages much less was it a claim made in implementation of the award made by the labour Court.;