- (1.) The State has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 12.6.2009 passed in an application filed by the respondent-workman under Section 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act').
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two fold arguments namely that in terms of earlier award passed by the Labour Court in favour of the respondent workman on 6.3.2002, he was entitled to Rs. 2,44,651/- but he has been directed to be paid Rs. 2,51,620/-. Secondly, the Executing Court could not go beyond the award. The proceedings before the Labour Court under Section 33 (c) (2) of the Act are in the kind of execution. The learned Labour Court while passing the award on 6.3.2002, which was under execution, did not grant interest to the respondent-workman but still vide the impugned award, the learned Labour court has directed payment of interest. Hence, the same is totally beyond jurisdiction.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-workman submitted that it is a case in which the respondent workman is being harassed by the petitioner. He was appointed as key man in August, 1992. His services were terminated on 25.2.1994, in violation of the provisions of the Act. He raised an industrial dispute. The matter was referred to the Labour Court. The award was passed in favour of the respondent-workman by the Labour Court on 6.3.2002 directing his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages but still the same was not complied with. The management filed Civil Writ Petition No. 5014 of 2003 in this court which was dismissed on 20.4.2004. Even the SLP filed before Hon'ble the Supreme Court was also dismissed in the year 2005. It was only thereafter that the respondent workman was taken back in service.;