RAJESH SHANKAR,J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24th August, 2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in M.J. Case No. 44 of 2009, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay to the respondent-workman back wages from 6th June, 1991, amounting to Rs. 1,13,715.53 with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the case i.e. 21st October, 2009.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the respondent-workman was posted in the Internal Audit Department of the petitioner-M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited. An industrial dispute was raised by few workmen, including the petitioner, relating to their promotion, which was finally referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad vide two different notifications of reference dated 22nd February, 1994. Subsequently, 'the said references were registered as Reference Case Nos. 35 of 1994 and 36 of 1994, respectively. The terms of reference was as to "whether the action of the Management of BCCL in denial of promotion to the concerned workmen to Supervisory Grade "A" VIth effect from 6th June, 1991 is justified, if not, what relief the workmen are entitled". Learned Tribunal answered the said references in favour of the workmen vide common award dated 17th March, 2009, holding, inter alia, that the concerned workmen are entitled for Technical and Supervisory Grade "A" with effect from 6th June, 1991. Thereafter, the petitioner implemented the award vide office order dated 2nd December, 2009 by granting notional seniority of pay in Technical and Supervisory Grade "A" with effect from 6th June, 1991 followed by Service Linked Up-gradation. Vide another office order dated 8th/10th December, 2009, the basic salaries/wages of the respondent and others workmen were fixed with effect from 6th June, 1991. The respondent-workman, being dissatisfied with the purported compliance of the award, filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as 'I.D. Act'), being M.J. Case No. 44 of 2009, for payment of all consequential monetary benefits on account of publication of the award dated 17th March, 2009 and vide order dated 24th August, 2010 passed under Section 33C(2) of the Act, the petitioner was directed to implement the award dated 17th March, 2009 passed in Reference Case No. 36 of 1994 in its letter and spirit. It was further held by the learned Labour Court that since the workman was not at fault to work on promotional post, he cannot be deprived from the back wages. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent-workman has been given notional promotion with effect from 6th June, 1991 and since the respondent did not work on the promotional post and there has been no specific direction by the learned Tribunal to make payment of arrears/monetary benefits, the petitioner-Management is fully justified in denying the payment of the monetary benefits for the back period. It is also submitted that the learned Labour Court is not competent to pass an order, directing payment of back wages to the respondent under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act.
(3.) Learned senior counsel for the respondent-workman, while justifying the impugned order dated 24th August, 2010 passed by the learned Labour Court, Dhanbad, submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 17th March, 2009 is quite clear, wherein it has been held that denial of promotion to the respondent-workman and others is justified and hence the concerned workmen are entitled for Technical and Supervisory Grade "A" with effect from 6th June, 1991. Consequence of the said award is that the concerned workmen are consequently entitled for payment of difference of wages with effect from 6th June, 1991, which is easily computable in terms of money. Learned senior counsel for the respondent-workman, while referring to the supplementary counter affidavit, submits that pursuant to the reference made by the Central Government vide order dated 22nd February, 1994, common disputes of several workmen were referred for adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad. Reference No. 35 of 1994 was in relation to the workmen, namely, R.S. Sharma and Gopalji Singh, whereas Reference No. 36 of 1994 was in relation to the workmen, namely, K.B. Jha, D. Chanchani, R.K. Singh (respondent workman herein), Rajeshwar Singh, Umesh Jha, Bhagat Ram, P.K. Bhandari, D.K. Ray and C.K. Ganguli. The terms of reference was also common as to whether the said workmen were entitled for Technical and Supervisory Grade "A" with effect from 6th June, 1991. Pursuant to the award dated 17th March, 2009 passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner-Management only provided notional seniority to all the workmen with effect from 6th June, 1991. Aggrieved by the said action, two workmen-Gopalji Singh and R.S. Sharma (Ramashish Sharma) filed applications under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act before the Labour Court, Dhanbad, which were registered as M.J. Case Nos. 48/2011 and 49/2011, respectively. Both the said cases were decided by the learned Labour Court, Dhanbad vide common order dated 17th July, 2013, directing the petitioner-Management to make payment of difference of wages to Gopalji Singh and R.S. Sharma with effect from 6th June, 1991 within a period of sixty days from the date of the order failing which the petitioner-Management was further held liable to pay the difference of wages along with interest @ 14% per annum. It is further submitted that so far as M.J. Case Nos. 48 of 2011 and 49 of 2011 are concerned, the petitioner-Management has already implemented the said order vide office order under Ref. No. 1664 dated 4th December, 2013 (Annexure-E to the supplementary counter affidavit). Learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner-Management cannot discriminate the petitioner vis-a-vis other workmen, as in the cases of Gopalji Singh and R.S. Sharma, the petitioner's Management has already been paid the difference of wages vide aforesaid office order dated 4th December, 2013.;