(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) The applicant has moved this contempt petition alleging non compliance of award of the Labour Court dated 31.7.2002 as modified by this Court.
The applicant workman had challenged his termination dated 1.7.1991 before the Labour Court. Labour Court by award dated 31.7.2002 set aside the order of termination, directed reinstatement of workman with full back-wages and continuity of service. Such award was challenged by the respondent before this Court in Special Civil Application No.8166/2003. Such petition came to be disposed of by Learned Single Judge by order dated 21.11.2005. Learned Judge passed following operative order :
"6.0 In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that the direction qua granting reinstatement in service is confirmed; and the direction qua granting full back wages is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall grant the benefit of continuity of service to the respondent from the date of the award. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs."
Subsequently, on an Misc. Application filed by workman, learned Judge in his order dated 21.2.2011 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.3215/2010 clarified that the Labour Court has granted continuity of service and therefore, in that view of the matter, the applicant is entitled to continuity of service as directed by the Labour Court.
When the opponents had reinstated the applicant in service but did not grant continuity of service, present contempt petition came to be filed.
In response to the notice issued, respondents have appeared and filed affidavit dated 6.4.2012. Along with the affidavit an order dated 2.4.2012 has been annexed. In the said order, the respondents have granted benefit of continuity of service to the applicant and also decided to consider his case for benefits flowing from Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, however, subject to granting continuity of service from initial appointment in the year 1985-1986 bearing in mind the provisions contained in Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is this qualification which is the bone of contention between the parties.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no question of application of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act when the Court has directed continuity of service. Learned AGP for the respondents under instructions of Shri S.D. Mehta, Executive Engineer who is present before the Court stated that question of application of Section 25-B of the Act would be confined to period of service rendered by the workman from the initial appointment till his termination on 1.7.1991.
In view of such clarification, it clearly emerges that period during which the applicant was under termination i.e. 1.7.1991 till he was actually reinstated in service in the year 2007, question of applying the provisions contained in Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act would not apply. Even otherwise, when the workman was prevented by the employer under the order of termination from discharging his service and when such termination is set aside, providing continuity in service, application of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act for such period would not arise.
We may recall that the order of the Labour Court was modified by this Court. Direction for continuity of service was confirmed. Direction for payment of back-wages was deleted. In that view of the matter, respondents having implemented the order of the Labour Court by granting continuity of service and in view of further clarification made before us, we do not see any reason to continue the present contempt proceedings. Same are therefore, closed. Notice is discharged.
(Akil Kureshi,J.) (C.L.
Soni,J.) (raghu) Top