- (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-employer contends that the respondent-workman was not entitled to medical allowance but still the same has been allowed to him by the Labour Court. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman on the other hand contends that the petitioner has deducted one months salary of the workman in lieu of one months notice, though admittedly he was an ad hoc employee. The workman has not challenged the award of the Labour Court and therefore is not entitled to set up any counter claim in this petition file by the management. This fact is not disputed by counsel for the respondent. Apart from this it has been brought to our notice that the workman on his reinstatement joined his duty only for one day and tendered his resignation without any notice to the management. Thus from the conduct of the petitioner, an inference can safely be drawn that his intention was only to recover the amount through the Labour Court award on account of back wages etc. The Industrial law Is meant for welfare of the employees and not for the exploiters who may be a worker. It is for the protection of poor workers, Equitable provisions cannot be permitted to be used as an instrument to black-mail the employers.
(2.) So far as the medical allowance is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent-workman has failed to point out any provision of law, rules or instructions under which the respondent-workman is entitled to medical allowance. Counsel for the workman has contended that the point was never raised before the Labour Court. It is purely a question of law. The petitioner is at liberty to raise the same even in the writ petition as there is no dispute with respect be facts. Consequently, we are of the considered view that the respondent-workman is not entitled to medical allowance, and as such impugned order of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that the respondent-workman is not entitled to the medical allowance. Nothing worth noticing has been pointed out, that how the amount paid i.e. about seventy one thousand does not satisfy the award against the employee. Nothing is due to the workman after the admitted amount has been disbursed to the respondent.
(3.) With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed and the award is modified. Petition allowed.;