The special appeal arises from a judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 08 September 2014, by which a writ petition1 that was filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution has been dismissed.
The spouse of the appellant was engaged as a driver by the first respondent. He was suspended from service pending a departmental enquiry when certain parts of the bus, which were in his charge, were found to have been stolen when the bus had suffered a breakdown on a journey from Nihtaur to Delhi. The workman was dismissed, after enquiry, from service on 20 August 1999, following which an industrial dispute was raised.
The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry had not been conducted in a fair and transparent manner and directed reinstatement with backwages. The award of the Labour Court was challenged in writ proceedings2 by the first respondent. During the pendency of the writ proceedings, it is not in dispute, the workman was granted wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19473. The writ petition filed by the first respondent was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 16 January 2012. A Special Leave Petition4 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 28 April 2014.
Before this Court, it is not in dispute that following the dismissal of the writ petition and the special leave petition, the appellant's spouse has been granted the payment of backwages as directed. The workman died in the meantime. The appellant filed a fresh writ petition claiming interest at the rate of 12% per annum or, damages from the date of suspension until the payment of the backwages in pursuance of the award of the Labor Court. The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge with the following order, which we quote herein below:
"This writ petition has been filed seeking interest on the award rendered by the Labour Court, Rampur on 29.11.1999.
The petition is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
This order has been passed in presence of Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents."
At the outset, and before we deal with the merits of the appeal, we would have to take note of the fact that the learned Single Judge has indicated no reason whatsoever save and except for a bald statement that the petition is wholly misconceived and is accordingly, dismissed.
We may emphasize the necessity of the learned Single Judge, while entertaining a petition, to disclose reasons why the Court considers it necessary to allow the petition or, as in the present, to dismiss it. Reasons, however brief, are necessary to indicate that there has been due and proper application of mind by the Court to the merits of the grievance. The length of the reasoning of the Court, in any given case, must necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the reasons, which are contained in the judgement furnish an indicator both, to the litigant and, as in the present case where the judgement is called in question in appeal, to the Court of Appeal that there has been a due and proper application of mind to the facts of the case and to the law involved while disposing of the writ petition.
Having said this, we have proceeded to hear the appeal and to dispose it of on merits without passing an order of remand to the learned Single Judge. The appellant is a spouse of a deceased employee. The dismissal from service related to the year 1991 and the matter was pending before this Court between 2000 to 2012 when the writ petition challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 29 November 1999 was dismissed. The termination of service had taken place in 1991. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the interest of justice would require that there should be some finality in regard to the dispute and hence, we have not considered it appropriate to remand the matter but to adjudicate upon the matter fully at this stage.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant should be allowed the payment of interest, as claimed, on the delayed payments of the amount which fell due and payable under the award of the Labour Court. We are not able to subscribe to the submission for more than one reason.
During the pendency of the writ petition before this Court, it is not in dispute that the workman was granted the benefit of the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act. Section 17-B was enacted by Parliament precisely to deal with situations where, as in the present writ petition, the award of the Labour Court is questioned before the High Court and in the event a delay is caused until the final disposal of the proceedings in certain cases.
It was to alleviate such situations that Parliament envisaged payment to be made to the workman in terms of the Section 17-B of the Act. The award of the Labour Court, it is not in dispute, did not contain any provision for the payment of interest. No direction for the payment of interest was issued by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition filed by the Management against the award of the Labour Court. The matter attained finality upon the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
For these reasons, we hold that there was no merit in the claim made by the appellant in the form of a separate writ petition, claiming the benefit of interest from the date of the order of suspension until the payment of backwages in pursuance of the award of the Labour Court. No provision of law would authorize the payment of interest in separate writ proceedings, as were instituted by the appellant in any event.
For these reasons, we are of the view that the petition, which was filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution, did not merit any interference. We have, therefore, indicated our reasons for confirming the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.
The special appeal is accordingly disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 15.10.2014 DS/-
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.) (P.K.S. Baghel, J.)