- (1.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS special appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 3rd July, 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5973 of 1997 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant against the order of the learned Judge, Labour Court dated 26.04.1997 was dismissed. Facts, in brief are that the workman filed a writ petition before this Court challenging interalia the order of his termination dated 06.08.1980. The said writ petition filed by the workman came to be allowed and this Court while allowing the writ petition in its operative portion passed the following directions : Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 08.06.1980 (Exhibit-18) and 30.08.1982 (Exhibit-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) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for back wages. After the decision of the writ petition with the aforesaid directions, the petitioner-appellant preferred an appeal before he Division Bench, but the out come of that appeal has not been brought on record. The workman, on the other hand, on the basis of the aforesaid directions moved an application before the learned Judge, Labour Court under Section 33 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for computation of the amount of wages. The learned Labour Court having issued notices, reply was filed by the petitioner-appellant to the application submitted by the workman and after considering the material on record, the learned Labour Court passed the order dated 26.04.1997 computing the wages due to the workman for which the petitioner-appellant was held liable in terms of the judgment of this Court dated 23.11.1992. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court preferred the writ petition before this Court and interalia submitted that as per the directions by this Court the appellant was not liable to pay any amount towards the wages for the period 06.08.1980 up to the date of judgment.
(3.) LEARNED Single Judge the submissions on behalf of the petitioner and held that since the relief claimed in the writ petition was based upon the interpretation of the judgment of this Court dated November 23rd 1992, which the petitioner-appellant has failed to produced. It was not possible to consider the submissions of the appellant. Even so in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the observations made in the operative portion of the judgment dated 23.11.1992, which has been quoted, here-in-above, the learned Single Judge while deciding the said writ petition had permitted the workman to move an application under Section 33 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 only for the purposes of computation of the back wages, which would require an adjudication also whether the workman concerned was during the aforesaid period after his termination gainfully employed or not, since this question could not have been determined while deciding the writ petition, therefore, while refusing to pass an order for payment of the actual wages, the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition vide judgment dated 23.11.1992 afforded an opportunity to the workman to move an application under Section 33 (2) of the Act before the learned Labour Court. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that there was no legality in the interpretation made by the learned Judge, Labour Court while deciding the application and rejecting the contention of the petitioner-appellant. Against the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition vide judgment dated 3rd July 2000, the present special appeal has been preferred. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It may be stated here at the out set that the learned counsel for the appellant raised much the same contentions, which were raised before the learned Single Judge in this special appeal against the order passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court on the application under Section 33 (2) of the Act. ;