05aiaE^:S;t^2:. .f :i ^i^r 13Fi'f^rN? -I^^T 3??^i ^iN? '3^ »<1|<1|<v|'4, yiTllwi(o, [®l<'11-(-)lj,< ii*iMi*ti<*-^f-^--^'Q----wi,200ST 3?TI^?T *q?W ( yt^<i^) ^^TW^rf^^n^i PETITiONER: RESPONDENTS: -Verslas- 1.1 2.1 3.1 Sinalle Bench: Hon'bl 31-1^009:- Shri P. Diwakar, Sr. Advocat^ petitioner. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Adv| respondentNoJ. • . • The undisputed facts in fri'i^ No.1 was employee of the petition^ Shrivastava chaSIenged his-:order .<| the Presialng Officer, .Labour Court cbi^f<n^1ti "HR^ff "^* 'fe^ <F3i<^i< i;i'3tf^Ha?n^T Managing Director, Steel Authorlty of India Ltd., Bhiiai Steei PIant, BhiJai, Tah. & Distt. Durg, M.P. Smt. Krishna Devi Shrivastava, Wd/o Late R.P. Shrivastava, C/o RaResh Kumar Shrivastava, Near RaiSway Gate. Khatauia Bastj, JABALPUR (M.P.) industrial Court, Raipur (CG) Labour Court, Durg (CG) e Shri Dhjrendlra Mishra, J, with Shri Ashlsh Surana, Advoeate for tie scate with Shri C.K. Sahu, Advocate for petition are that husband of respqndent r company. His services were terminated on 4-4-1968 after conducting ehftuiry. The workman namely, (ate R.P. if termlnation unsuecessfuliy fjrstly before it Durg and subsequentiy by way of appe^i in Industrial Court. However, his M|sc. Petltion No.261/73 was aJtowed by the Division Bench of the High Coutt of IVIadhya Pradesh vide order dated 23-12-75 and the petitioner was dprected to reinstate the workman with full back wages from 22nd April, 1968| The petitioner company ehal!eng©dthe order of the High Court by way ^>f Civjl Appeal No.1125/76. During the ^Ss'^^^-^s^s p lC—78 'TST^i^Kn-H, yiTl1<-l<l<o, 'f^TRTy \ • . ^ *11*1CTI g,t<jq,—""""•-—•••••••••••••••"••"••••••••"•^^200 ^TI^II(^F (^rf^3^) w^l'^lf^^t^' --<^^T ^^ ^^NT ^RHW^ft^ ^?1^T thb fifed ttte pendency of the appeal before retired from sen/sces on 30th June, was dlsposed of as infructuous witl1 deceased. workman was relnstated 1 the order of the Hlgh Court. Th{ through mutuai settiement vlde Ann^ a sum of Rs.50,227.84/- as per the | parties. MCC No.117/88 was fii^i compliarsce of the order of the Hig| same was • dismissed as withdra^ln between the parties. Thereafter, under Section 108 ofthe Madhya short 'the Act, 1960') for recoveryl instance, the application was reject^ that the workman has been paid di the rnatter was agal.n remanded by' to the Labour Court to decide his 1960 after considering entitlement| settJement and in these opportunity of hearing to the pa^ Annexure-P/2 on 28-11-2003 and - has heid that the workman was entlt appeal preferred by the petitioner been further rejected by the Industl'i, P/1 dated 7-4-2004. cjrcunfisllances c?»j^f^^1vi'Hp^rf ^* 'fe^ <f^i'^i< i?3tRPT37T^l Hon'ble Supreme Court, the workman 1|986. In view of his retirement, civil appeal certaln directions, In the meanwhlle, the |in service on 18-8-1978 in complJance of itireafter the parties resolved the dlspute ^xure-P/5 on 4-1-1989. The petitioner paid kerms of settlement arrived at bet^veen the by the deceased workman f@r non- Court of Madhya Pradesh, however, the on 17-1-89 In viev^'of the settlement deoeased workman fited an appjication pradesh Industriat Retations AcA, 1960 <for pf the dues under the Act. At the first ^d by the Labour Court with an observation |e wages as per the settlement. However, |he Industria! Court with a specific direction lapplteation under SectSon 108 ©fth.e Aet, of the workman as per the terms of the », the Labour Court after affordlng tjes has passed the Smpugned order of ^artly accepting the claims of frie workman tted for Rs.1,66,130/- as baek wages. The igain.st the order of the Labour Court has ial Court by Smpugned order of Annexyre- ^ '<X^£-78 'T^ T<ii*ii^t^, ®Til'H'li(o,f®i<ni^^< *11HCTI «>*<il<t» "^200 31T^T TI^^ (<4?I^<i^) ^i^r^T'f^N" "^? ^I^T^lNT ^UMUIIIINW ^HW^^3:iT^T -^ Learned counsel for the petiti| have accepted the ciaim of the ^j arrivlng at the figure of Rs.1,66,| <^i^f<rt^<i "W^ff "^ rs^l <F3i^i< '^'3ffiR3^T bner su&rnltted that both the Courts below forkman wsthout specifying the basis for 130.90/-. The petitionfer after properiy computing back wages for which jthe workman was entitled has pald the amount due to the workman, I Referring to Section 108 of|the Act, 1960, it was argued that in a proceeding under Section 108 of th^ Act, 1960 it was not permissible for the Labour Court to conduct enqulry] workman and the djspute regardinj appllcation under Section 31(3) ofthj On theother hand, Shri H.l afresh to ascertain entltiement of the ^ entItSement could be settled m a fresh ?Act,1960. 3, Agrawal, Sr, Advocate with Shri C.K. Sahu, Advocate appearing for res^ondent No.1 contended that the dispute between the parties was finaily setl|ed by the Hon'ble High Covrt of Madhya Pradesh and the workman was dire|cted to be reinstated wjth fuli. back wages for the period indicated In the said which is as under:- tirder. The parties arrived at settlement, "(1) That, Shri RP. Shrivastava.s|all be pald baok wages for the period froni 4.4M to 18.3.76 with the be^iefit of Annual Sncrements and pay fixation on revisson of pay-scaSes fronl That, in addition to pay and] Shrivastava shali also be| Productivity Bonus for the ac^ admissjbJe to him. time to time. Dearness AiSowance including VDA Shri pajd Profit Sharing Bonus/Production ^oynting year during this period as may be 5QE-fiC—78 ~S^ T<{WW^, yiTll-y^Ko, fs|dl-(-l^< *ii*i<ni «»*iicf»—•——"•••—-q^ 200 ^IT^T 1q^F (li°l^^) ^7-i 3i1^[<^Tf^W TOT 311^1 ^IW INNWNI^. WHW??^37T^T L (iii) That, the Gratuity for the peri of reinstetement shaii aiso b^ the Company's contributlon <^ him. • bd from the date of termination tilj the date paid to Shri R.P. Shrivastava. Similarly, f CPF for this period shall aiso be made to (iv) That, the payment of back wlthin a period of one montjt Discussion. w^ges as stated above shall be made to him from the signlng of thls Record Note of (V) That, the Advance of Rs.10, the pendency of case befo against the back wages. POO/- paid to Shri R.P. Shrlvastava during 1-e the Supreme Court shail be adjysted (vi) That, Shri R.P. Shrivastava Sn the High Court of M.P. the management to make th tolal Since the entiflement was t4 since the workman was not paid per the settlement, appiication und< of the amount due under th®Ac1| opportunity of hearsng to the p^ impugned orders on the basis ofe} contention of the petitioner that the| Section 108 of the Act, 1960 is • He further submitted that respect to the appiication under settiement and in these circumstarjc ^ W^* ^* 'feT^ ^^K ^'^f^T37?^T Ihall withdraw MCC No.117/88 fited by him ar^d'produce a copy to this effect to facrlitet® payment." be decided in the light of settlement and back wages for which he was entitled as |r Section 108 of the Adt, 1960 for recovery was fiied. The Tribunals after affQrdlng Irties have assessed entitlement by the ^jdence available on record and, therefore, above dlspute could not be decided under with|out any merit. |he details fumfshed by the petittoner in iection 108 do not refer to the details of ;es, the Tribunais have parlly accepted the .^ 'XI^HC—78 3?l^T^lferw WT W^T^RNr ^^ (-, '^ Ban/e 4 /1^ T^T ^WW^, V>-^\W\Q, fsldl-y'j,'!. 'W^ff'gWW"""""""""""""""""""""""""^^200 ^?T H^W ^^TW^rf^3?T^T -5^ clalm of the workman and asses^ed entjtlement at Rs.1,6g,130.90/-. The above flndmg is a finding of fact arj petltlon under Artlc!e 226/227 ofthe] 1 have heard learned counsel of settienient arrived at between thl quantify entitiement of the workmar) has paid a sum of Rs.50,227.84/-. given by the petitioner in its written caiculation under the various headl and in these circumstances, the Tr| on record have quantifled entitlemei] cr)i4it<n^1^ 'RF^ft ^ fe^f if^^K ^73tftH3?T^T ^d the same cannot be interfered in a writ IConstitution of Indla, for the parties. 1 have perused the terms ^ parties. Th.e terms of settlement do not as back wages. The petitionsr company IHowever, from bare perusaf ofthe detaiis ^tetement, it is observed that fte deteits of ^ of settSemient have not been mentioned [bunais on the basis of evidence avaliabje |t ofthe workman at Rs.1 ,S©,130.90/-. the Act, 1960 relates to recovery o has already been quantified firstl subsequentiy, by way of settleme.nl for deciding the same was necessai n the consjdered.opinion of|lis Court, appjjcatton under Section 108 of amount due under the Act, since amount ^ by the order of the High Court and between the partjes, no fresh proceedtng y and the appiication under Section 108 of the Act; 1960 was properiy entertaihed by the Courts below. Bsth the Courts beiow have recorded a finding of ftact with respect to entitlement of the workman. This Court is of the opinion 1|hat there is no illegaiity and infirmity jn the jmpugned order warranting interfer^ 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India.l No orders as to oosts. 'nce in exeroise of jvrisdiGtion under Articte Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge