- (1.) The petitioner, Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (JSFCSCL) has challenged order dated 09.06.2011 in M.J. Case No. 74 of 2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad whereby the petitionerCorporation has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 9,28,140/ to the respondent namely, Devendra Prasad Yadav.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, initially the respondent was engaged as a daily wage employee by the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited on 10.10.1979 to work as a salesman. His service was terminated on 25.06.1983 and an industrial dispute was raised which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication vide Reference Case No. 6 of 1991. Vide order dated 01.06.1994, the reference was answered in favour of the workman and the Corporation was directed to reinstate him with full back wages and other consequential benefits. The award dated 01.06.1994 in Reference Case No. 6 of 1994 was challenged by the Corporation in C.W.J.C. No. 1839 of 1995 which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.1995. The award dated 01.06.1994 was modified to the extent that instead of full back wages, the workman was to be paid wages for the period between 27.11.1988 and the date of award i.e., 01.06.1994 and from the date of the award till the date of his actual reinstatement. The respondentworkman was reinstated in service on 17.11.1999. The respondent filed M.J. Case No. 5 of 2001 for payment of payscale payable to the permanent employees. The said case was dismissed vide order dated 22.12.2004 holding that the said case was filed as an attempt to get more out of the award. Order dated 22.12.2004 in M.J. Case No. 5 of 2001 was challenged by the respondent in W.P.(S) No. 6 of 2006. The writ petition was disposed of on 12.04.2006 observing that if the award has not been implemented the workman may bring this to the notice of the authorities or move the appropriate forum for implementation of the award. A review application being Civil Review No. 82 of 2007 was filed by the workman which was dismissed vide order dated 02.11.2007. The respondent workman again moved the High Court in W.P.(L) No. 5893 of 2008 for payment of entire arrears of salary as a permanent employee of the Corporation. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 12.08.2010 with liberty to the workman to raise the claim before the appropriate authority. Thereafter, the workman filed M.J. Case No. 74 of 2010 for payment of full back wages in the light of award dated 01.06.1994 in Reference Case No. 6 of 1991. By the impugned order dated 09.06.2011, the Labour Court, Dhanbad allowed the prayer of the workman.
(3.) A counteraffidavit has been filed stating that the respondent joined the Corporation as salesman at Sales Centre, Munidih, Dhanbad. Subsequently, he was transferred to Maithan where he worked continuously till 24.06.1983 and thus, he acquired status of permanent employee after working for 240 days continuously. When the respondent demanded wages at par with the permanent employees, the management of the Corporation terminated his service illegally on 25.06.1983, without giving any notice or conducting a proceeding. The award dated 01.06.1994 became final after the challenge of the petitionerCorporation failed before the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1839 of 1995. When the award was not implemented by the management, the respondent filed M.J.C. Case No. 103 of 1997 however, during the pendency of the contempt case, the management issued order dated 17.11.1999 reinstating the respondent. In the writ petition W.P.(L) No. 5893 of 2008 filed by the respondent for grant of permanent status by regularising his service, the Hon'ble High Court has observed that "since the claim of regularisation has nothing to do with the monetary benefit, the same cannot be treated as res judicata and liberty was given to the workman to raise his claim before the appropriate forum". Since the award was not fully implemented and the High court permitted the workman to approach appropriate forum, M.J. Case No. 74 of 2010 was filed by the respondent. In these facts, the application filed by the respondent under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been allowed.;