SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. - (1.) By this writ of certiorari the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated April 26, 1997 of the Labour Court, Jaipur whereby the application submitted by the respondent Corporation underSection33-C(2)of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) was allowed.
(2.) This fact is not in dispute that the respondent workman had filed the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act as per the directions issued by this Court in the Writ Petition No. 1845 of 1983 decided by this Court on November 23, 1992. In para 4 of the writ petition the petitioner has incorporated operative part of the order thus: "Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated June 8, 1980 (Ex. 18) and. August-30, 1982 (Ex. 20) are declared illegal and hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to reinstatement with other consequential benefits except the actual wages for the period between the date of termination of service of the petitioner and the date of this order. He shall be free to avail remedy under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for back wages. The order passed by this Court shall. not prevent the Corporation for taking fresh decision in the matter in accordance with the observations made above. Costs made easy." The petitioner has not filed the copy of the order dated November 23, 1992 but stated in para 4 that it will be produced at the time of arguments but it was not produced.
(3.) Mr. Kewal Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner vociferously canvassed that the order dated November 23, 1992 clearly says that the workman will not be entitled to the back wages and only consequential benefits. Therefore the presumption drawn by the learned Labour Court that the computation of 1 the back wages is left to it is not justified and not in accordance with the scope of Section 33-C(2) of the Act and computation of back 1 wages iswithoutjurisdication.Reliance was placed on Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and another, 1995 (1) SCC 235 1995-I-LLJ-395; RSRTC v. Ramavtar Sharma, 1998-I-LLJ-973 (Raj); State of Punjab v. Krishan Dayal Sharma, AIR 1990 SC 2177; Charan Singh v. Birla Textiles, AIR 1988 SC 2022 : 1988 (4) SCC 212 : 1989-I-LLJ-250; Maneck v. Phonex Mills Ltd., 1993-III-LLJ 5 (Suppl)-69 (Bom); Anand Narain Shukla v. State ofM.P., IV Sc.L.J. 1950-83; State of U.P. v. AnilBehari, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 207: 1993-I-LLJ-317; U.P. Warehousing v. Vijay Narain, AIR 1980 SC 840 : 1980 (3) SCC 459 and Mewad v. State of U. P., 2000 Lab IC 395.;