S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 29.9.2011 in M.J. Case No. 73 of 1999 whereby, the claim for payment of allowances except, the leave encashment has been declined, the applicant -workman has preferred W.P.(L) No. 6770 of 2012 and, M/s. TISCO Ltd. has challenged the order granting leave encashment to the applicant -workman. W.P.(L) No. 6770 of 2012 The brief facts of the case are that, the applicant -workman namely, R.D. Thakur was employed initially with Indian Tube Limited and he was dismissed from service on 25.1.1979. An industrial dispute was raised which after failure of the conciliation proceeding, was referred for adjudication vide Reference Case No. 31 of 1979. The reference was answered vide award dated 30.5.1988 whereunder, the management of M/s. TISCO Ltd. was directed to reinstate the applicant -workman with 75% back wages and other benefits. An application under Sec. 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was filed for payment of various benefits accruing to the applicant -workman during the period his service remained terminated. The said application was partly allowed vide order dated 29.9.2011, against which the parties have filed writ petitions.
(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the tripartite agreement and the award dated 30.5.1988, the applicant -workman was entitled for various allowances which were not paid to the applicant -workman and therefore, the application under Sec. 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was rightly entertained by the labour court. Challenging rejection of the claim for various allowances to the applicant -workman, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the labour court ignored, the award dated 30.5.1988 whereunder, the applicant -workman was granted "other benefits" also, and thus committed serious error in law in not awarding "allowances" payable to the employees of M/s. TISCO Ltd. to the applicant -workman also.;