TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) PURSUANT to the order of the Court dated 23rd of January, 2009, the Superintending Engineer (respondent no.2) is present in Court in person along with a Bank Draft of Rs.1,87,224.00, drawn on State Bank of India, Service Branch, Kanpur, dated 7th February, 2009, in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) HEARD Shri Sudhanshu Narain, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.S. Sharma, the learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents. It transpires that the services of the petitioner was terminated w.e.f. 1st February, 1987. The petitioner raised a dispute with regard to validity and legality of the order of termination. The Labour Court, by its award dated 23rd March, 1998, found that the order of termination was illegal and, consequently directed reinstatement of the workman w.e.f. the date of her termination with continuity of service. The Labour Court, however, directed that the back wages would be payable w.e.f. 1st January, 1996 onwards. The respondents, being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, filed Writ Petition No. 16657 of 1999, which was dismissed by a judgment dated 6th February, 2002. It further transpires that a review application was filed which was also rejected by an order dated 22nd of October, 2003. In the meanwhile, the petitioner moved an application under Section 6-H (1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act for computation of the benefit in terms of the award. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, by an order dated 17th September, 2002, computed the benefit for the period 1st January, 1996 to 31st of July, 2002 amounting to Rs.3,61,445.00. However, on a review application filed by the employers, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, by an order dated 28th December, 2002, reduced the amount to Rs.1,87,224.05. In spite of this amount being computed, the employers did not pay this amount nor complied with the award, namely, reinstatement of the workman. The petitioner was made to run from pillar to post and, eventually she moved an application under Section 33-C (2) for computation of her wages and other benefits, in terms of the award for the period 01.01.1996 to 31.07.2003. This application was rejected by the Labour Court, by an order dated 30th September, 2004, on the ground that the application was not maintainable, since the award did not mention as to what amount was payable to the petitioner as wages and that her status as a workman was also not defined, and consequently, directed the petitioner to raise a reference again under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) BEFORE this Court, the respondent was called upon to intimate the Court as to why the award of the Labour Court and consequentially, the subsequent order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner under Section 6-H (1) was not complied with. In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated specifically that against the judgment of the High Court, a writ petition was filed before the Supreme Court of India (wrongly mentioned as writ petition and that, only a special leave petition could have been filed).;