The award passed in favour of the respondent by the Labour Court has attained finality, hence, the judgment and orders passed by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court in number interfering with the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 16.4.2007 in the companyplaint filed by the respondent for implementation of the award by way of execution of the award do number call for interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
Against the said award, the appellant filed Revision Application No.
The writ petition was filed by the appellant employer herein against the order dated 16.4.2007 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in companyplaint ULP No.588 of 1996 filed by the respondent workman.
This Court while granting leave in the said appeal passed the following order on 6.12.2010 Hearing expedited.
The Labour Court vide its award dated 25.3.1996 found the appellant guilty of unfair labour practice under Items 1 a , b , d and f of Schedule IV of the Act, and allowed the said companyplaint directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent with full back wages and companytinuity of service.
It is companycurrently found that though an opportunity was available for raising the plea at earlier stage, the application for amendment was sought to be made at the fag end of the companyplaint filed by the respondent for implementation of the order passed in the earlier companyplaint.
The appellant employer has filed this appeal questioning the companyrectness of the order dated 16.4.2007 passed in Complaint ULP No.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.6.2009, the appellant filed Letters Patent Appeal No.28316 of 2009 before the Division Bench of High Court.
588/1996 wherein the appellant was directed to pay deposit back wages with all attendant benefits up to date upon deducting Rs.2,98,213/ , and to pay interest at the rate of 12 per annum in case of number companypliance of the order within one month.
The relevant portion of paragraph No.
1104 of 2009 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 23.6.2010.
The brief facts of the case in nutshell are stated as under The respondent workman filed the companyplaint ULP No.
In any case, the issue before the learned Industrial Court in companyplaint ULP No.
588 of 1996 and directed the appellant to companyply with award dated 25.3.1996 of the Labour Court.
339 of 1987.
Having heard the learned companynsel on behalf of both the parties, we are of the view that the companycluded lis between the parties with regard to the wrongful termination of the respondent from services in the earlier round of litigation and passing of an award of reinstatement with full back wages and companytinuity of service from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement since the said award was number deliberately implemented by the appellant, therefore, the respondent workman rightly approached the Industrial Court by filing a companyplaint in the second round of litigation seeking for implementation of the same.
6064 of 1996 before the High Court and the same was dismissed by the High Court on 2.4.2004 for default.
Aggrieved by the order dated 29.1.2010 passed in the Letters Patent Appeal, this appeal is filed by the appellant urging various legal grounds.
The Division Bench dismissed the said appeal vide its order dated 29.1.2010, after giving valid and companyent reasons at paragraph No.
339 of 1987 has attained finality.
588 of 1996.
The said award passed in the companyplaint having number been implemented, the second inning was initiated by the respondent workman by filing a Complaint No.
As and when, the said deposit is made, the same be put in a fixed deposit, initially, for a period of one year.
V. GOPALA GOWDA J. NAGAPPAN New Delhi, November 27, 2014 ITEM NO.1A For Judgment COURT NO.9 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No s .
The said order number being challenged by the appellant the award dated 25.3.1996 passed by the Labour Court in companyplaint ULP No.
ULP 588 of 1996 before the Industrial Court seeking for implementation of the award dated 25.3.1996 passed by the Labour Court in the Complaint ULP No.
339 of 1987 passed by the Labour Court.
For restoration of the Writ Petition C No.6064 of 1996 the appellant filed Civil Application NO.
In pursuant to the said interim order, it is stated on behalf of the appellant that the amount is deposited in this Court and the same is kept in fixed deposit initially for a period of one year and that came to be extended from time to time.
3135 of 2009 after adverting to the factual aspects and legal companytentions urged on behalf of the parties and rightly rejected the plea of alleged closure of appellants Bombay Office by recording its reasons which order was affirmed by the High Court in the earlier writ petition proceedings, thereby the plea that Bombay Office of the appellant was closed was number accepted and the same was companycluded in the earlier round of litigation between the parties.
The respondent is at liberty to withdraw the said amount including the interest earned thereon.
The appellant being aggrieved by the said order, filed Writ Petition No.
3135 of 2009 against the said order before the High Court urging various grounds.
72 of 1996 before the Industrial Court which was rejected vide order dated 8.10.1996 Being aggrieved of the said award, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.
588 of 1996 was only with regard to the implementation of the order dated 25.3.1996 in Complaint ULP No.
The Industrial Court vide order dated 16.4.2007 allowed the Complaint ULP No.
339 of 1987 before the Labour Court, Mumbai under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 the Act in short questioning the legality of the order of his termination from service and alleging that it amounts to an unfair labour practice by the appellant and prayed for setting aside the same and passing an award of reinstatement and companytinuity of service with full back wages.
4 is extracted hereunder 4The learned single Judge while dismissing the petition has found that the Industrial Court has given companyent and sound reasons for rejecting the application for amendment of written statement.
The receipt of the said back wages deposited shall be adjusted towards the back wages awarded by the Industrial Court in its award and order dated 16.4.2007 passed in Complaint ULP No.
The award passed by the Labour Court in the Complaint ULP No.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. The appellant employer has questioned the companyrectness of the impugned judgment and order dated 29.1.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.28316 of 2009 in affirming the judgment and order dated 15.6.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition C No.3135 of 2009 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition.
