Arun Tandon - (1.) -Heard Sri A. K. Mishra advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Sri K. P. Agarwal, senior advocate, assisted by Miss Bushra Maryam advocate, on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) M/s. Shakumbhari Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd., Todarpur, district Saharanpur is an industry within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Saharanpur under Section 6H (1) of the Act dated 24.12.2004, whereby the labour court has determined a sum of Rs. 31,333.50 paise as the money payable to the workman for the period between May, 2002 to February, 2003, as retaining allowance and salary. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows : The State Government vide notification dated 4.8.1998 referred the following dispute between the petitioner and the respondent-workman, ��� ??��� ?�٥ m�?U� o ? ���??� ��� �? � ?ȧ?�?U ��ʪ� ��� ��� ?U� ?ȧ?�?U ��ʪ� ?�� ??U�߸ �� v--|--} ??� ?�?U�� "U� ? ?�� ���� ? ??�?� ?��� �?��� � � (c)U��� ���/o�?� ?� �� ?� "�U, �� "U˥ �� �'�� � ���??� �"U� ��/o ��ٷ (�?U �"�) � ? ?�� o� ?��?U� "�U ��� o�� �?� �???U�� ? ���� �"U�- for adjudication. The said dispute was registered as Adjudication Case No. 158 of 1998 and was decided vide award dated 20.9.1999. The operative portion of the said award is as follows : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... Since the employers failed to carry out the award of the labour court, as aforesaid, an application was filed by the workman for payment of wages strictly in accordance with the award of the labour court. The Deputy Labour Commissioner in respect of the period between November, 2000 to April, 2000 determined the wages as Rs. 70,635 payable to the workman. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38297 of 2002 and the Hon'ble High Court on 11.9.2002 passed an interim order whereby recovery of the amount under order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner was stayed. For the subsequent period, i.e., from May, 2002 to February, 2003, the workman filed another application on the same grounds. The Deputy Labour Commissioner by means of order dated 24.12.2004, computed Rs. 31,333.50 paise as money payable to the workman in exercise of powers under Section 6H (1) of the Act. This subsequent order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner has been challenged by the employers by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3022 of 2005. In support of both the writ petitions common contentions have been raised by the employers which have been replied on behalf of the workman and as such both the writ petitions are being decided by means of a common judgment.
(3.) ON behalf of the employers it is contended that under the award of the labour court dated 20.9.1999 passed in Adjudication Case No. 158 of 1998 the workman was entitled for the reliefs as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1986 SC 332, the relevant portion whereof was recorded in the award itself and which reads as follows : "The question is whether such an action would amount to retrenchment. Since it is only a seasonal work the respondent cannot be said to have been retrenched in view of what is stated in clause (bb) of Section (OO) of the Act. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the labour court and the High Court is illegal. However, the appellant is directed to maintain a register for all workmen engaged during the seasons enumerated hereinbefore and when the new season starts the appellant should make a publication in neighbouring places in which the respondent normally live and if they would report for duty, the appellant would engage them in accordance with seniority and exigency of work." It is, therefore, contended that the workman was entitled to be employed in new season provided he reports for duty and the appointment was to be offered in order of seniority and exigency of work. It is submitted that there was no requirement of extra work and further no person junior to the workman was appointed and as such no relief could be granted by the Deputy Labour Commissioner under Section 6H (1) of the Act. Therefore, the entire order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner was wholly without jurisdiction.;