- (1.) This writ petition is filed by the Petitioner-Management to challenge the award passed by the Labour Court, which has directed reinstatement of the Respondent-workman with 40% back-wages on merits on various counts. During arguments, however, the counsel for the Petitioner-Management has confined his prayer to plead for setting-aside the part of the award directing reinstatement and instead for adequately compensating the Respondent.
(2.) While issuing notice of motion, interim stay was granted on the condition that the amount, which was directed to be paid to the Respondent, be deposited with the Labour Court within a period of six weeks. The court, however, had directed that the amount shall not be withdrawn until further orders. A sum of Rs. 2,13,400 accordingly was deposited by the Petitioner-Management, which was due to the Respondent-workman on account of back-wages. The counsel for the Petitioner has, thus, made limited prayer, as noticed above.
(3.) Efforts were made at negotiation but the same failed. The counsel thereafter made their respective submissions. The counsel for the Petitioner-Management would point out that the management had challenged the award of the Labour Court on the various counts, as noted below: (i) That Respondent No. 2 never served any demand notice upon the management-Petitioner No. 1. The service of demand notice upon the management is sine qua non for the initiation of the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the absence issuance of any such notice by Respondent No. 2, no proceedings could be undertaken against Petitioners before the Labour Court. (ii) that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to enlarge the scope of the reference made to it. On an application by Respondent No. 2, the Labour Court vide order dated 30.9.2003 (annexure P-8), impleaded Petitioner No. 1, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, as a party to the proceedings and thereby enlarged the scope of reference. (iii) That Respondent No. 2 was working in a supervisory capacity as is clear from the list-an-nexure P-1. He did not fall within the definition of workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Morever, he was never terminated from service but voluntarily absented from duty. (iv) That the Labour Court has gone wrong in awarding back-wages at the rate of 40 per cent to the Respondent No. 2, even though he had remained gainfully employed and had put in less than two years' service with Petitioner No. 1 disentitling him from claiming back-wages. Still, the Petitioner has confined prayer for paying adequate compensation to the Respondent-workman instead of his reinstatement.;