HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.1890 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against an award made in M.P.No.98 of 2000 under Section 33 (C) (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’) dated 17/06/2004 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court. The petitioners are the management. Respondent No.1 is the workman. The workman, when he was removed from service, raised dispute in I.D.No.249 of 1994. However, the said I.D. was answered in favour of the workman on 26/02/1996 directing his reinstatement into service and to treat the period from 14/10/1991 to the date of publication of the award as leave without pay. Pursuant to the said award, he was reinstated into service on 26/07/2000. Thereafter, the workman seems to have filed the present M.P.No.98 of 2000 under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Act for payment of Rs.42,306/-. The said MP was allowed on 17/06/2004 as prayed for. Therefore, this writ petition. The MP was filed praying the Labour Court to compute the benefits due to the workman in terms of money and direct the management to pay the same to the workman forthwith. The case of the workman was that in I.D.No.249 of 1994 an award was passed directing the management to reinstate him into service and further directed the period from 14/10/1991 till the date of publication of award as leave without pay and the same shall not be accounted for increment, back wages, attendant benefits and pensionary benefits. Thus, workman was given continuity of service up to 13/10/1991 and from the date of publication of the award. The grievance of the workman is that the Depot Manager, Banaganapalli, has not issued reinstatement order though he approached him as per the directions of the Regional Manager in 1996. It is also his case that he has also approached Regional Manager and made oral requests but his efforts did not yield any result. This aspect was considered in detail by the Labour Court and recorded a finding that it is in his evidence that on his reinstatement he was paid the entire amount. The workman also admitted that he did not claim back wages in E.P.No.5 of 1999 filed earlier. Since the management has not passed any orders after issuing letter in Ex.M-1 and since the workman has also not taken any further steps after receiving Ex.M-1 and more over taken gratuity etc., from the management and in view of the laches on the side of both parties, the Labour Court considered it just and reasonable to direct the management to pay the due amount of salary for one year from 12/06/1996 to 12/06/1997 i.e., at the rate of Rs.2545+888 per month for nine months and Rs.3,803/- per month for three months i.e., Rs.42,306/- and allowed the application to the above extent. In spite of service of notice twice, the respondent-workman failed to appear before this Court either through an Advocate or any representation is made. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the workman was not entitled for any such relief and no amount was due and in fact it was the duty of the workman to approach the management and get the posting orders issued. He did not do so. Strictly speaking, the very application under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Act is not maintainable. Be that as it may, it appears the workman, on attaining the age of superannuation, retired in 2005 December, and while admitting the writ petition, an interim stay as prayed for was granted. Under those circumstances and in view of the fact that the workman himself was guilty of not approaching the management for posting orders, I deem it appropriate to grant only 50% of the amount as granted by the Labour Court i.e., Rs.21,153/- which is sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 16th April, 2010 SKM