HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4846 of 2005 Dated: 25-06-2010 Between: Uttamchand. … Petitioner And Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4846 of 2005 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the Award of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad, dated 11th January 2005, passed in E.P.No.23 of 1999 in I.D.No.168 of 1996. The petitioner is a proprietor of a shop, which was being run in the name of M/s.Nataraj Metal House, situated at General Bazar, Secunderabad. The 2nd respondent-workman was in the employment of the petitioner. When his services were terminated, he approached the Tribunal by filing I.D.No.168 of 1996. The said dispute was decided in favour of the workman, by issuing directions to the petitioner herein, to reinstate him without back wages. On the ground that inspite of the Award of the Tribunal and his reporting to duty, the petitioner was not reinstating him into service, the 2nd respondent-workman has filed E.P.No.23 of 1999 before the Tribunal, under Section 11-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is the case of the 2nd respondent-workman that in compliance of the directions in the Award, though he has shown his willingness to join duty, vide his letter, dated 12th of August 1999, he is not reinstated by the petitioner. Therefore, for enforcement of the Award of the Tribunal, E.P.No.23 of 1999 was filed. In the aforesaid E.P., petitioner herein has disputed the claim of the workman, by filing counter affidavit. It is the case of the petitioner that though a letter, dated 12th of August 1999 was sent by the workman, but he was not willing to join in the post, which he was holding. It is the case of the petitioner that he has also sent a letter, dated 14th September 1999 to the 2nd respondent, requesting him to join duty and do the job in terms of his employment, which is marked as Ex.W-6. The Industrial Tribunal has disposed of E.P.No.23 of 1999, holding that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been in service with effect from 12th August 1999 to 31st of August 2002, on which date, the shop was closed. By giving such declaration, without any direction neither for reinstatement nor for payment of any monetary benefits, the said E.P. is ordered. During the course of arguments, it is submitted that claiming wages for the aforesaid period, the 2nd respondent-workman has also filed an application under Section 33 (c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In this writ petition, it is the contention of the petitioner that as the 2nd respondent was not willing to join and perform the duties in terms of his appointment order, the Tribunal ought not to have made any declaration in E.P.No.23 of 1999, as the said application is filed to execute the directions issued in the Award in I.D.No.168 of 1996. It is submitted that in any event, the claim of the 2nd respondent for payment of wages for the disputed period, is pending consideration. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent- workman that inspite of his letter, expressing his willingness to join duty, he was not allowed to work and the petitioner was avoiding to implement the directions of the Tribunal, as such, a declaration was given by the Tribunal in the E.P. filed by him. At the outset, it is not in dispute that in the Award passed in I.D.No.168 of 1996, directions were issued for reinstatement of workman without back wages. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent-workman did not join duty inspite of sending a letter, dated 14th September 1999. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent- workman is claiming that he has issued notice on 12th of August 1999, expressing his willingness to join, if the directions issued in the Award are implemented. However, in spite of such claims, no direction is issued by the Tribunal either for reinstatement or for payment of wages for the interregnum period. Be that as it may. As the shop of the petitioner was closed on 31st of August 2002 and a separate application is filed by the 2nd respondent-workman under Section 32 (c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, such claim can be considered independently, whether the petitioner was denied reinstatement in the light of directions issued by the Tribunal in I.D.No.168 of 1996 with effect from 12th of August 1999. In view of the pendency of such claim, which is to be independently considered by the Tribunal by considering the objections of the petitioner, no further directions need be issued in the present writ petition. Keeping it open to the petitioner to raise such objections that the 2nd respondent-workman has not joined inspite of the letter sent by him, and as such, he is not entitled to any wages for the period from 12th August 1999 to 31st of August 2002, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th June 2010 ajr