AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTE Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The workman was appointed from 2.1.1992 as a worker in the Workshop of Allahabad Agricultural Institute. It is alleged that the appointment was for a fixed term, but the record reveals that his appointment was extended from time to time. Eventually, at some stage, the workman was placed under suspension and thereafter the services of the workman was terminated by an order dated 12.3.1994. The workman, being aggrieved, raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication. The Industrial Tribunal passed an ex-parte award dated 14.12.1995 setting aside the order of termination and directing reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and with full back wages. It transpires that the employer filed a Restoration Application which was also rejected by the Tribunal. The employer thereafter filed WP No. 5371 of 1997 which was dismissed by a judgment dated 23.4.1999. It transpires that a second writ petition was filed in the year 2000 challenging the same award, which was again dismissed as not maintainable by a judgment dated 10.9.2003. The Court while dismissing the writ petition imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- upon the employer. As the result of the dismissal of the writ petition, the award of the Tribunal became final since the same was not challenged by the employer before a superior Court. The workman filed a Misc. Application No. 20 of 2001 claiming wages for the period 15.12.1993 to 28.2.2001. The Labour Court allowed the claim application granting Rs. 95,932/- towards wages. The employer, being aggrieved by this order, has filed WP No. 52524 of 2002.

(2.) The workman filed another Misc. Application No. 46 of 2002 claiming wages under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming wages for the period 1.3.2001 to 31.3.2002. This application was allowed by the Labour Court by its order dated 10.1.2003 granting the workman a sum of Rs. 21,502/-. The employer, being aggrieved by the said order, filed WP No. 10259 of 2003. Thereafter the workman filed an application under Section 6-H-1 of the Act for recovery of the balance amount of the wages for the aforesaid period. The Deputy Labour Commissioner by an order dated 30.1.2004 directed the workman to file an appropriate application before the appropriate Court for its computation. Based on the said order, the workman filed Misc. Case No. 19 of 2006 under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act before the Labour Court for payment of the balance amount for the period 1993-2001. It was contended that for the aforesaid period, the workman was only paid last drawn wages under Section 17-B of the Act and that after the dismissal of the writ petition, the workman became entitled to full wages. In these proceedings, after the exchange of the affidavits and upon the filing of the documentary evidence, the workman moved an application 10-D praying therein that, he does not want to lead any further evidence and that his miscellaneous case may be decided on the evidence that has already been brought on record.

(3.) This application came up for consideration before the Labour Court on various dates and eventually, the Labour Court, by an order dated 8.1.2007, allowed the application as well as the claim directing the employer to pay a sum of Rs. 1,49,177.60/-. The employer, being aggrieved by this order, filed WP No. 55478 of 2007. In these proceedings, the employer filed a Review Application which was rejected by an order dated 30.6.2007.