- (1.) THIS intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 28.01.2013 passed in S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 924/2012 wherein, the learned Single Judge of this Court found the order dated 09.08.2012, as passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14249/2010, being that of the decision of writ petition on its merits, albeit in the absence of the counsel for the petitioner-appellant. The learned Single Judge, therefore, proceeded to reject the application for restoration as not maintainable but left it open for the petitioner-appellant to file an application for review.
(2.) THE principal matter in the writ petition related to an order passed by the Labour Court, Kota on 22.07.2010 on an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act of 1947') whereby the Labour Court, with reference to its award dated 11.02.1992, directed the appellant Company to make payment of an amount of Rs.10,99,042/- to the respondent-workman together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application, i.e., 04.09.2002. When the writ petition (CWP No.14249/2010) preferred against the aforesaid order dated 22.07.2010 was taken up for consideration on 09.08.2012, nobody was present on behalf of the petitioner-appellant. The learned Single Judge, however, proceeded to dispose of the petition after taking note of the grounds mentioned in the petition, inter alia, that in view of the tripartite settlement entered into between the parties, benefit to the respondent-workman should not have been computed beyond 12.09.1997; and that pending the proceedings before BIFR and AAIFR, execution proceedings should not have been taken up against the appellant Company. The learned Single Judge found the said contentions untenable with reference to the facts of the case; and held the petitioner-appellant liable to make payment to the respondent-workman in terms of the award dated 11.02.1992. However, the learned Single Judge was of the view that in the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947, the Labour Court was not justified in awarding interest to the respondent-workman. The learned Single Judge, therefore, partly allowed the writ petition and modified the order impugned to the extent it related to the directions for making payment of interest @ 6% per annum. The petitioner-appellant Company was also held entitled to deduct the amount paid under the interim order earlier passed in the writ petition and under Section 17B of the Act of 1947.
(3.) AS noticed, the aforesaid order dated 09.08.2012 was passed by the learned Single Judge in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and hence, an application, purportedly seeking restoration, was filed but the same was disallowed by the order under challenge in this intra-court appeal.;