- (1.) Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing order 4.8.2004, Annexure P-12, vide which claim statement filed by respondent-workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (in short the Act) has been accepted qua the wages for the period 29.9.1990 to 30.9.1991.
(2.) In the writ petition, petitioner, namely, The New Egerton Woollen Mills, Dhariwal (hereinafter referred to as the management) has averred that it appointed into service responent No.1, Ved Pal (hereinafter referred to as the workman). It is further averred that on 22.9.1990, while respondent-workman was working as TA Grade I, a joint report was given by Worster Master and Worsted Superintendent to the effect that respondent No.1-workman is indulging in subversive behaviour, instigating the supervisory/clerical staff and creating terror in the minds of workers. This led to termination of services of respondent No.1-workman on 28.9.1990 by the management by invoking the provisions Clause 19(A) of the Modified Standing Orders, by discharge simplicitor. However, on a mercy appeal by the workman, he was given fresh appointment with effect from 1.10.1991 with the understanding that he will not seek legal remedy against termination of his services and shall remain loyal to the management.
(3.) Further, as per decision of the petitioner-management dated 4.8.1991, the intervening period with effect from 29.9.1990 to 30.9.1991 was to be separately decided. Respondent-workman then made representation seeking decision for the aforesaid intervening period. On that representation, order dated 10.6.1992 was passed deciding thereby that the said intervening period be treated as leave without wages, with the reservation to consider the same towards reinstatement with back wages at later date subject to satisfactory report of work and conduct in future. Thereafter, respondent-management served upon the petitioner-management demand notice dated 19.8.1996 claiming wages for the intervening period but the consideration proceedings taken pursuant thereto failed. This led to filing of claim application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act before the Labour Court. The learned Labour Court vide its order dated 4.8.2004 allowed the claim application in the manner indicated above. It is this order which is under challenged in the present writ petition. Notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondentworkman. Upon appearance, no written statement has been filed on his behalf.;