1. Heard Mr. Udit Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioner-State authorities.
2. Challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 19.01.2013 passed by the Labour Court, Nadiad in Recovery Application No. 46 of 2004, whereby the petitioner-authorities are directed to make payment of wages to the respondent-workman for the period for which he was not reinstated, even after the award of the Labour Court which was unsuccessfully challenged before this Court.
3. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Udit Mehta, has submitted that the respondent was discontinued from service in the year 1986 and he had approached the Labour Court in the year 1987 and the Labour Court, vide award dated 19.12.1988 had ordered reinstatement of the respondent-workman, which was challenged by the petitioner authorities by preferring Special Civil Application No. 7714 of 1999 which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.10.1999. It is further submitted that the respondent-workman was reinstated in service on 01.02.2002.
4. It was the case of the respondent-workman that the authorities ought to have reinstated him in service soon after the award of the Labour Court. It was also the case of the respondent that the wages from the date of the award to the date of actual reinstatement was wrongly denied to him, for which he had moved the Labour Court and the said claim is accepted by the Labour Court and the petitioner-authorities are directed to make payment of wages to the respondent-workman, which is calculated to be Rs.72,790/-, with 12 % interest. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has tried to assail the said order of the Labour Court contending that the Labour Court ought not to have given such direction.
5. Having heard learned advocate for petitioner and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds that, there is no error in the view taken or final order passed by the Labour Court. The authorities, even after loosing before this Court on merits, took years to implement the award of reinstatement for which the workman should not suffer. This Court also fails to appreciate as to how the petitioner authorities are aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court since it has only corrected the negligence and lethargy on their part. The trend of filing frivolous petition needs to be checked and therefore disposal of this petition simplicitor would be too lenient a view which I am not inclined to take in the facts of this case.
6. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is rejected with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). It is directed that the amount which is ordered by the Labour Court shall be paid by the petitioner-authorities to the respondent workman within a period of two months from today, along with the amount of cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) salim/21 Page 3 of 3