I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) The workman impugns the order of the Labour Court, Haryana, at Rohtak, dated April 20, 1978 (Annexure P. 10) so far as it negatives his claim under section 33-C (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) The facts leading to the passing of the impugned order are not much in dispute. The petitioner was in the employment of respondent No. 3, Sugar Mills, as an Accounts Clerk at a salary of Rs. 239.70 per month in clerical grade III, when he was retrenched from service with effect from April 9, 1971. He impugned this retrenchment in a reference under section 10 of the Act on the ground that the same was not only mala fide, but was also violative of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act inasmuch as persons junior to him had been retained in service while dispensing with his services. As a result of the trial that followed the reference, the Industrial Tribunal vide its award dated Feb. 19, 1976 (Annexure P. 1) held the retrenchment to be illegal and ordered the petitioner's reinstatement from the date of retrenchment with continuity of service and full back wages. In this award, the Tribunal recorded a categorical finding to the effect that the management of the respondent will had failed to establish firstly, the compliance of the provisions of section 25-F of the Act and secondly, that the petitioner was the junior most person actually retrenched. As there occurred a clerical mistake to the effect that instead of reinstating the petitioner with effect from April 9, 1971 the date of his retrenchment, it was mentioned that he shall be reinstated with effect from April 3, 1974, the award Annexure p. 1 was corrected through a corrigendum (Annexure P. 2) published in the gazette on Aug. 10, 1970. It need be mentioned here that before the pronouncement of the award, Annexure P. 1, the petitioner was given a fresh employment in terms of section 25-H of the Act with effect from July 17, 1975. The offer of this re-employment was made to the petitioner vide letter dated July 3, 1975 (Annexure P. 3)- While making this offer, it was specifically mentioned on the top of this letter that the same was "without prejudice" implying thereby that it Would not affect the rights and obligations of the parties who were already litigating before the Industrial Tribunal. Though this offer of re-employment was to the post of a clerk in the same grade which the petitioner was enjoying at the time of his retrenchment, yet one of the material conditions of this offer was stated at No. 3 in the following words:- "That your services shall be liable to be terminated without assigning any reason by serving one month's notice or payment of wages in lieu thereof. This condition shall apply equally either side." This offer of re-employment was accepted by the petitioner vide this letter dated July 17, 1975 (Annexure P. 13) specifying therein that his claim for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages and also for other monetary gains was pending with the Industrial Tribunal and, therefore, he was joining the assignment without prejudices to his rights as safeguarded in his reinstatement case. He reported for duty the same day. Then on April 24, 1976, the petitioner resigned from this job vide his communication dated April 27, 1976 (Annexure P. 4) wherein he stated as follows:- "I hereby tender my resignation from the job given to me vide your letter No. Genl./ 75-76/93 dated the 3rd July, 1975." The latter mentioned particulars are of Annexure P. 3 vide which the petitioner had been offered re-employment in terms of section 25-H of the Act.
(3.) Subsequent to his resigning the job vide Annexure P. 4 and the non-implementation of the award, Annexure P. 1, by the management of the mill, the petitioner filed the present application under section 33-C (2) of the Act for computation of his wages for the period from 1970 to 1978, house rent allowance from 1973 to 1978, bonus from 1970 to 1976 and incentive bonus from 1971 to 1974 and also earned leave wages. Out of this amount which worked out to be Rs. 39,061.61, he offered to adjust Rs. 6,032.55 which he had already received and thus claimed the balance amount of Rs. 33,029.06.;