Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40738 of 2006 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Director E.S.I. Labour Medical Services Respondent :- Smt. Kalawati And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- G.K. Pandey,S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- S.N.Dubey,SC
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Although the respondent workman was originally represented by Sri S.N. Dubey, learned counsel has appeared today to state that he no longer has instructions.
This petition impugns the orders dated 9 September 2005 and 10 April 2006 passed by the Labour Court concerned. By the first order an application made by the respondent workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 came to be allowed and an order passed calling upon the petitioner - employer to pay a sum of Rs.2,80,380.50 along with interest @ 6%. An application for recall of that order appears to have been made thereafter which stands rejected by the order of 10 April 2006 with the Labour Court holding that no power to review a final order under Section 33-C(2) stood vested in it. The services of the respondent workman are stated to have been dispensed with on 1 July 1991. This led to the raising of an industrial dispute which ended in an award being rendered by the Labour Court on 16 January 2003 holding that it was invalid and consequently the workman entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. The challenge to that order at the behest of the petitioners here met partial success with a writ petition preferred by them being dismissed on 5 November 2003 with the award of the Labour Court being upheld except to the extent of relief being modified to half of the back wages being paid to the respondent workman. The judgment of the High Court has admittedly attained finality. It is only thereafter that the proceedings under Section 33-C(2) came to be entertained.
Before this Court, it is pertinent to note that there is no challenge to the computation of benefits as made by the Labour Court. The only ground which is addressed and pressed was that the Labour Court proceeded to finalize proceedings without affording an opportunity to the petitioners. However, neither in the writ petition nor in the course of oral submissions addressed on this petition, were the petitioners able to establish any prejudice that may have been caused. It is not their case that the benefits as computed are contrary to the reliefs granted in terms of the award which has attained finality. In view of the above, the Court finds no error in the orders impugned.
The petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Arun K. Singh (Yashwant Varma, J.)