- (1.) BOTH these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment, as the same arise out of the common order.
(2.) PETITIONER-Ratneshwar Prasad Mandal, a workman employed in the Company known as M/s Indo Asahi Glass Company Limited {petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 2700 of 2004}, was dismissed from service on 8.6.1982 when he was found guilty of the charge of misconduct during domestic inquiry. Against that order, the Union raised an industrial dispute, but the State Government vide its order dated 19.11.1983 refused to make any reference. However, the State Government after reconsideration the matter on the petitioner's representation referred the dispute for adjudication before the Labour Court, Hazaribagh vide its order dated 6.9.1990 by making reference as to whether the dismissal of petitioner- Ratneshwar Prasad Mandal, a workman of M/s Indo Asahi Glass Company Limited, Hazaribagh, is proper and justified Being aggrieved with the said reference, the Company filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 275 of 1991 but that was dismissed. Against that order, a special leave petition was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which met the same fate. Thereupon, the parties filed their statements in the said reference case. However, the Company filed an application for adducing evidence on the point to justify the order of dismissal, which application when was dismissed, the Company again filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 1327 of 1994 (R) which was again dismissed. Thereupon, the Labour Court, Hazaribagh passed an order by which, order of termination was quashed and the Company was directed to make payment to the petitioner of back wages from the date of his dismissal till he attained the age of superannuation along with other benefits, which the petitioner was entitled to. That order was challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 1296 of 1996 (R) by the Company on amongst the other grounds that second reference was quite bad and the order making payment of full back wages is also bad, as there was no fault on the part of the Company. Learned Single Judge while upholding the order, passed by the Labour Court, modified the order by directing to make payment of back wages to the extent of 75%. That order was again challenged by the Company in L.P.A. No. 113 of 1997 (R), which was disposed of on 18.12.1997, modifying the order of the learned Single Judge directing the Company to make payment of back wages to the extent of 50% only. Thereafter, the Company informed the petitioner through a letter that a sum of Rs. 66,704.07/- is payable to him and hence, he may receive that amount. In response to that, a legal notice was sent on behalf of the petitioner-Ratneshwar Prasad Mandal stating therein that he is entitled to have a sum of Rs. 7,42,805/- towards all claims. When the Company did not make any response, the petitioner filed a case before the Labour Court, Hazaribagh under Section 33 (c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for determination/computation of the amount due to be paid to him by the Company. The Company did appear in the case and filed a written statement denying the claims which had been put forth on behalf of the petitioner. It was stated that the petitioner did retire on superannuation in the year 1994, whereas the claims, which have been raised, are upto the period till May, 1997 and that the Company had provided many facilities, such as free electric supply, free accommodation, free maintenance, which cannot be computed in terms of wages and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any such claims. It was reiterated that the petitioner is entitled to only a sum of Rs. 66,704.07/-. However, during pendency of said proceeding, an offer was made by the Company for payment of a sum of Rs. 2,46,114.81/- subject to deduction of house rent, electricity charge and water charge but the same was not accepted and hence, the Labour Court proceeded to determine the claims which the petitioner was entitled to get.
(3.) IT does appear that the petitioner had put forth the claims of payment of Rs. 7,42,805/- payable towards salary, dearness allowance, incentive + ex-gratia, leave salary, provident fund, statutory bonus, gratuity, yearly bonus, L.T.C., medical facility, yearly uniform, leather shoe, wrist watch, gazetted holidays, electricity charge etc. Those claims related to the period from June, 1982 to May, 1997 but the petitioner, according to the Company, got retired on attaining the age of 58 years in the year 1994. Therefore, the Labour Court upon furnishing the statement by the Company towards claim of salary and dearness allowance till May, 1994 allowed 50% of it to the extent of Rs. 1,07,940.88/- Further, sum of Rs. 38,623.80/-, Rs. 6,042.47/- and Rs. 27,932/-being 50% of the amount payable towards incentive + ex-gratia, leave salary and yearly bonus respectively were allowed. Apart from that, the claims of provident fund, statutory bonus and gratuity were also allowed. Besides that claim for payment towards L.T.C., medical facility, yearly uniform, leather shoe, wrist watch, gazetted holidays, electricity charge etc. was also allowed though according to the Company, petitioner-Ratneshwar Prasad Mandal was not entitled to get it, as it will never fall within the definition of 'back wages'. In this manner, total sum of Rs. 3,22,460.81/- was allowed in favour of petitioner-Ratneshwar Prasad Mandal against the back wages and other facilities admissible to him and the same was directed to be paid within 15 days failing which the interest at the rate of 6% would be chargeable. IT does appear that thereafter the said amount on being tendered by the Company was received by the petitioner though under protest. Nevertheless, both the parties being aggrieved with the order dated 24th July, 2002 passed by the Labour Court, Hazaribagh in Misc. Case No. 3 of 1999 preferred the writ applications. Mr. Mahesh Tewary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Ratneshwar Prasad Mandal, submits that the Labour Court, Hazaribagh has committed error in allowing only 50% of the amount which was payable towards incentive + ex-gratia, leave salary, statutory bonus, gratuity and yearly bonus, as these items though are incidental to the wages but will not come within the definition of 'back wages' as defined in Section 2(r r) of the said Act, wherein a clear stipulation is there that the wages do not include gratuity, bonus and contribution paid or payable by the employer to any pension or provident fund and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to 100% of the amount payable towards the aforesaid claims. The second contention, which has been raised in this writ petition, is that the Labour Court though did notice that the age of superannuation of the employee of the Company is 60 years but the amount towards the aforesaid claim has been allowed upto May, 1994, whereas petitioner-Ratneshwar Prasad Mandal was entitled to get the amount payable towards back wages and for other facilities till June, 1996 i.e. till completion of 60 years of age. The plea, which has been taken by the Company in its writ petition, is that the bonus and the other amount paid towards L.T.C., medical facility, yearly uniform etc. will never come within the definition of 'wage' and, therefore, the Labour Court committed error in awarding the amount towards the aforesaid claims. It has also been pleaded that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by exercising power under Section 32(c)(2) of the said Act to adjudicate upon the claims and then passing the order for its enforcement, as under Section 32(c)(2) of the said Act the Court can only enforce the order which has already been adjudicated upon. The plea taken on behalf of the Company never appears to be acceptable, as it is only upon adjudication of the claim by the Labour Court and also by this Court, application was filed under Section 33 (c) (2) of the said Act, whereby determination of the amount payable to the petitioner-Ratneshwar Prasad Mandal was made.;