THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P. NO. 15807 of 2001 Date of order: 2.12.2010 Between: K. Md. Khaleel …Petitioner and The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P. NO. 15807 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner’s application under Section 33 (C) 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) under the impugned order dated 28.8.2000. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petiton is filed. The claim of the petitoner arose in the following circumstances, The petitioner was working at Adoni as driver in the respondent-Corporation. He was transferred to Nandyal depot vide proceedings dated 29.8.1985. Questioning the same, he filed a suit in OS No. 130 of 1985 before the Principal District Munsiff, Adoni and obtained an interim injunction. Later the said suit was decreed on contest on 29.8.1990 and the appeal filed by the respondent- corporation in AS No. 7 of 1990 before the learned Sub- ordinate Judge, Adoni was also dismissed on 29.8.1992. The petitioner claimed that in spite of the interim injunction granted in the aforesaid suit against the order of transfer dated 29.8.1985, he was not allowed to join duty at Adoni and he could join duty only on 17.2.1987. The petitioner, therefore, claimed that for no fault of his and in spite of the order of interim injunction passed by the competent civil court, he was not allowed to join duty and consequently he was not paid wages. He also made a claim for exgratia for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87 and difference of wages for the period from March, 1987 to December, 1993 and January, 1994 to December, 1995 with interest @ 12% per annum, making a total claim of Rs.1,10,121-69. The said claim was contested by the respondent-corporation before the Tribunal and under the impunged order, the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that there is no evidence to show that the respondent-corporation did not allow the petitioner to join duty. In this writ petition filed against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly confined the petitioner’s claim to the wages for the period from 29.8.1985 to 28.8.1986 @ Rs.1607-71 per month, totaling to Rs.19,292-52 ps. and wages for the period from 29.8.1986 to 17.2.1987, totaling to Rs.9,535- 35 ps. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Tribunal committed an error in thinking that no document was produced in support of the said claim, without considering the fact that the competent civil court granted an interim injunction in favour of the petitioner and in spite of the injunction, the respondent-corporation did not allow the petitioner to join and work in the post up to 17.2.1987. The aforesaid period was undoubtedly covered by the period in which the suit was pending and interim injunction was in operation. It was for the respondent- corporation to show that the petitioner was, in fact, not working during that period, otherwise it amounts to, not only violation of the injunction order, but putting a premium on such violation in favour of the respondent-corporation and against the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner was allowed to join duty on 17.2.1987 itself establishes that on the ground of his transfer dated 29.8.1985, he was not allowed to work at Adoni by disregarding the injunction order passed by the civil court. The petitioner, therefore, is entitled to the wages for the aforesaid period and his application before the Tribunal to the extent first two items, as mentioned above, deserves to be allowed, together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim till realization. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 2.12.2010 KR