- (1.) IN Misc. Application No.969/2013 Heard Mr.Mahesh Kumar Asnani in person. On a consideration of the averments made in misc.application No.969/2013 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the delay in filing the accompanying review petition, seeking reconsideration of the judgment and order dated 28.10.2013 passed in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.955/2013, is condoned. The application stands allowed.
(2.) IN Review Petition : - The facts in brief, necessary to be narrated, are that the review applicant was appointed as Field Coordinator (FCO) with the respondent -Company, and his services were terminated w.e.f.6.9.1996. He raised an industrial dispute, and following due adjudication by the Labour Court, Jaipur, it by its award dated 23.11.2002, directed his reinstatement with back wages. The respondent -Company, being dissatisfied with the award, approached this Court with S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1056/2003, which was admitted and the operation of the award was stayed. It was thereafter, that the review applicant filed an application under Section 17 -B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act') for the reliefs, as contemplated therein. Though in refutation of the claim, the respondent -Company did assert that the review applicant was gainfully employed, and was thus, not entitled to any relief under Section 17 -B of the Act, by order dated 18.11.2003, his (appellant's) prayer was allowed and the respondent -Company (writ petitioner) was directed to make payment of his (review applicant's) salary last drawn w.e.f.1.2.2003. It was further directed that the monthly salary be paid on or before 15th of each month. Arrears were also required to be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of that order. Subsequent thereto, the review applicant filed an application seeking a direction to the respondent -Company to make payment to him as well of certain allowances i.e.conveyance allowance, kit allowance, tiffin allowance, L.T.A., medical reimbursement and annual grade increments, as constituents of wages payable to him, under Section 17 -B of the Act. In its reply, the respondent -Company, in categorical terms, denied that the review applicant was entitled to the said allowances under Section 17 -B of the Act, as those were to be paid on actual performance of works, and thus, were not within the purview of "full wages last drawn" thereunder (Section 17 -B of the Act).
(3.) THE learned Single Judge, by order dated 24.2.2006, while taking note of the notification dated 28.10.1996 on the basis whereof, the review applicant had claimed the aforementioned allowances however, did not accede to his request therefor. As the order dated 24.2.2006 would reveal, the learned Single Judge did record that the learned counsel for the review applicant, on a query being made, had disclosed that he (review applicant) had been drawing an amount of Rs.5065/ - per month as salary, and that, in terms of the directions contained in the order dated 18.11.2003, the respondent -Company was making payment of an amount of Rs.5095/ - per month, as last drawn salary, to him. Being still dissatisfied, the review applicant filed another application reiterating his prayer for grant of the above allowances and seeking a direction to the respondent -Company to release monthly an amount of Rs.7225.30 as a consequence thereof. The learned Single Judge, being principally of the view that the allowances, as referred to by the review applicant, were not admissible to him under Section 17 -B of the Act, again rejected the prayer. Being aggrieved, the review applicant preferred the aforementioned appeal, which was dismissed on 28.10.2013.;