- (1.) Heard counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition.
(2.) This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 11.12.1991 (Annexure P-3) and dated 16.3.1992 (Annexure P-6). Respondent No. 2 was working as a Conductor with Punjab Roadways. His services were terminated by petitioner No. 1 with effect from 17.5.1985 without any notice, charge-sheet, inquiry or compensation. A dispute was raised and vide reference dated 12.10.1988, it was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide its order dated 1.6.1990 (Annexure P-1) held that the services of the workman were illegally terminated by the management and he is entitled to be reinstated into service with benefit of continuity thereof. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court further held that workman is also entitled to back wages at the rate of 70 per cent. The petitioners did not comply with the said award and as a result thereof on 27.5.1991 the workman made an application to the Labour Court under Section 33 (2)-of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the application the second respondent has claimed Rs. 1,23,000/- (Annexure P-2). After hearing the parties, the Presiding Officer vide his order dated 11.12.1991 (Annexurc P-3) passed the order directing the petitioners to pay Rs 1,23,000/- within a period of two months from the date of order failing which the petitioners were directed to pay interest at the rate of 24 per cent. In the opening para of the order, the Presiding Officer observed as under : "A claim of Rs. 1,23,000/- made by the workman correctness of which has not been disputed by the respondent. The amount pertains to the arrears from 1985 to 1990." The petitioners thereafter filed review petition Annexure P-5 disputing the claim. According to the petitioner the total amount payable to the second respondent comes to Rs. 54,908.80. Calculations thereof are also annexed to this petition as Annexure P-4. The Presiding Officer after hearing the parties dismissed the review petition vide order dated 16.3.1992 Annexure P-6. In the review petition again the Presiding Officer has observed as under: "I have heard representatives of both parties. The perusal of the order dated 11.12.1991 shows that it was passed by considering the reply of the applicant-management wherein the whole of the claim was admitted by it." It is against these two orders Annexures P-3 and P-6 that above writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner. The Director, State Transport, Punjab Chandigarh and Another.
(3.) Mr. Nagar, learned counsel appearing in support of this petition firstly urged that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in such matters is that of executing Court and in the absence of any direction in the order dated 1.6.1990 (Annexurc P-1) for payment of interest, no interest could have been awarded by the Labour Court in the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Act. He further urged that the Labour Court has totally exceeded jurisdiction while awarding interest. Learned counsel also raised the dispute about the rate of interest. He then urged that the concession was never made by the representative of the petitioners and therefore, reliance placed by the Labour Court on such concessions is illegal.;