- (1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.12.2011 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in M.J. Case No. 46 of 2000, whereby learned labour court has directed the petitioner-Management to pay the back wages to the respondent-workman. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner on the sole ground that learned labour court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue/controversy, which was raised in the application filed under section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as the 'I.D. Act').
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned labour court has determined a question/issue of disputed fact, though the same is not permissible under the aforesaid provisions of the I.D. Act. Learned counsel referred to and relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in 'Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vrs. Ganesh Razak & Another, 1995 1 SCC 235. It has been submitted that the concerned workman was under suspension, but he had claimed that full time work was taken from him and he is entitled to full back wages. Learned labour court has erroneously accepted the said claim of the concerned workman and directed the petitioner to pay the wages of the said period. The order of learned labour court is beyond the scope and jurisdiction, envisaged under section 33(C) (2) of the I.D. Act.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the facts and materials on record.;