- (1.) THE petitioner, Bahratch District Co-operative Batik ltd, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying Tor a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award of the Labour court dated 7/8/1984 (annexure 4) and has further prayed for directions in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents not to give effect to the said award.
(2.) IT so appears that the respondeat No. 1 Ram Naresh Pat hale was appointed as a Clerk/cashier in the petitioner bank and the appointment is alleged to have been in a purely temporary capacity. Thereafter the said respondent was again appointed for a specified period on the said post. The respondent No, 1 made an application to the Labour Court- Gorakhpar, the respondent No- 2 under Section 6-H (2) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (referred to hereinafter as the UP. Act) and Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (Central Act 14,of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). A copy of the application of the respondent No. 1 has been placed on record of the writ petition as annexure 1, fin this application it was prayed firstly, that annual increment after completion of one year's service be granted; secondly, that annual increment including special allowance should be calculated and deafness allowance payable thereon be granted: thirdly that the customary bonus which was not based on the' profits be granted since it was part of the salary of the respondent; foruthly, that 12% interest be paid to the respondent since the petitioner had made earning at the said rate on the amount of the respondent no I withheld and, lastly, the respondent No. 1 had praved for expenses of the proceedings and the damages incurred by him in continuation of the same. The petitioner contested and filed a written reply, inter alia asserting that there was no notification appointing the respondent No 2 to adjudicate the application under Section 6h (2) of the U. P. Act read with Section 33-C (2) of the Act and that the proceedings being in the nature of execution proceedings, the Labour court was not com petent to adjudicate the merit of the claim of the workman. It was the stand of the petitioner that the claim of the workman itself being disputed by the petitioner, the Labour Court was not competent to proceed with the matter and determine the rights of the claimant to receive the benefit and could not be granted the reliefs claimed. A rejoinder affidavit was filed by the respondent No. 1 whereafter by an award dated 7. 8. 1984 (annexure 4) the Labour Court granted the reliefs claimed by the respondent No. 1. The writ petition was admitted by this Court on 1/2/1985, but the prayer of the petitioner for staying the implementation of the impugned award exparte was not considered at the admission stage and notices were ordered to be issued to the respondent No. 1.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. I have also gone through the affidavits exchanged between the parties.;