- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondent. This writ application is directed against the Award dated 19.8.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in M.J. Case No. 5 of 1999, by which order the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in an application filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming a sum of Rs. 86,100/- and an interest at the rate of Rs. 15% per annum on the ground that his services was legally terminated by the Proprietor of M/s. Ashok Enterprises, Upper Bazar, Ranchi, came to a finding that since there is no adjudication by under any reference that the termination of services of the Petitioner-claimant was illegal and since provision of Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act is a provision of execution of an Award or order to get the admitted amount payable to the employee and it cannot be adjudicated under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act until and unless right to get amount is adjudicated upon dismissed the application.
(2.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the aforesaid finding of the Labour Court is perverse since the Petitioner, who was appointed in the Upper Bazar Shop as Salesman-cum-Bill Clerk on 8.12.1977 in the shop of the Respondent-Company and he worked there on 4.4.1994, he was transferred to Main Road Shop of the Company where he worked till 8.4.1998. It is further submitted that on 8.4.1998 the Petitioner illegally terminated without any notice and compensation and he is entitled to his terminal benefits. Accordingly, he filed an application on 22.3.1999 under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act before the Labour Court, Ranchi, demanding retrenchment compensation for 20 years, gratuity, leave wages and for interest. It is further submitted that the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, gave a finding that the claim is not based on any existing right nor it has been held that his termination was due to closure of shop. The Labour Court also wrongly found that the claim application was bad for non-joinder of necessary party since the Management of Main Road Shop of M/s. Ashok Enterprises was not made a party and as such the impugned award is bad and only fit to be set aside.
(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that since the management-Respondent had taken no approval of the order of discharge or dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act and as such he will be deemed to be continuing in service and hence he was entitled to all benefits. He has relied upon the judgment of Jaipur Zila Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma and Ors., 2002 92 FLR 667;