I S . C J\ THr IlflH CCXFT OF KA1N3T.KA AT .‘GALrr DATFO T:41. THE 26Th taY or Nay 1998 3F PC F 7 1E Oh’ -L MR.Ju3TICr G.PATRI St 4V:44 ‘flJO IEioN det 1 ,—en: Sri 0 a.n,kjsn, soraf late •ri Ops€ aged about 42 y ars vorlcing as Heloer loken No.U.400 Spun .41k hills C[-nnapj’a 57lO1 and residing et anhalagere .ihettj Hal’y Post. ‘-‘harnapatna raluk Rural stri t P t’l net thy ari V. 3 ‘ 4 aiI’, Aovo’,t ) S The ‘la.iagtr en 1 • r - t , ...*a 3iak Industries Cororp?tson (A ‘vernmcnt of bee ne’s’ a Enter on se,. ‘nat ‘an iik Wlls Ghannapatna oil %1 represented by the ueneral M4noger (By . Frabhakpr, Advocate; ‘fljt, wait petition is files ur’er Arts le a 227 of the ronetitution seekng to uesh that porton of the order rcletn’ to ccov c of interim rlef pid to the p ‘iti r r b th -o a ate c’irirc th ocroc-cy of ‘re iWu•t’iel .oj c tion is pot C.rd’r d:tsd 1’ ‘ icr ‘urc Ehj; .i’ Øet tsar eosir on force a htvir.j bn r t rv In rdsrb, th’ “cu. t hi.. :— ‘t •‘t t’ ft I a: I W ‘ e w — b e 0 In LI s writ aetition u 4cr rticle, 22 and 27 of the Canstitutiort. petitioner seeks quashing of that. portion of the ordcg cf the respondent dated is—iigsr at ?rnrxureeO 1 whic’i airects recovery of the anount paid to the petitios r by way of int.r rilief during pende c f the disute efor the Labour urt. sd -‘ çoontc as aual Labo.rer i i ry 1..S? n • - t suts u liv confkm d ir ervice. Zr , $ domestic a’ c, at was held against him and, or’ çr’cf of misconduct, he was dismissrd from service. He raised an industrial dispute in that regard by filing a applicatior un.er Sectic’ 1C(4A) of the Industrial ‘isputes kct, (‘Act’ fir 3hDrt) aefore tne Additio our ourt, lore. The L Cour •r dat — ° at Ar ti d to ri Ther - , 1 lone 1 1’ i dl lacet interis , pleadinc had not b gainfully eaoloyed, that it se r’fficul’ fer ,im to adirt;in himLrlf nd his facily consisting of eight persors, and zneF, therefore, interi. reli°’ • t to him. t neec’. ‘o r at this stage that even during domestic enquiry, petitioner had been placed under suspension and was being paid subsistence allowance. T his application seekino for interim relief was allowed by the Laôour Court by its order catecD 7—5199O at Annexure_R, Labour Court referred to a deci$ion of this Lourt in MYSORE CEMENTS LIMITEO v. S R SICOARAMAIAH (67 FJR 136),.. to the effect that once a domestic enquiry is set aside s!.Linvaiid, the workman shall be presumed to be under suspension till the dissal of the reference, and, as such.., he would te entitled to interim relief equal to the subssstence allowance if he was not gain fully employed. Labour Court also referred to the said decision for holding that the workman would be entitled to 75 per cent of the last drawn wege Since the petitioner had been dra wing Rs,600/— per month as last drawn wage , La..bour Courtinterim relief a.t Rs,60c.j— pe.r mr*nth from the. date of the appiiceton for Inter iLl relief till the disposal of the. refe.ren.Le. The dispute eventually came to be adjudicated n mer its leading to pssno o srd ciateo 23_5_1094 at AnnexureL Labour Court held the charge as proved, but acting under Section HA of the Act observrd thus: !Taking the circumstances of this case into consideration, I am of the ocinion toat the punishment imrosed by the Disciplinary Authority is in a sense disproportionate to the gravity of the off•• ence conmit ted by the first party workman, A lesser punishment would satisfy the renuirEmerts of the principle of proportionality and produce a salutary effect on the first party workman.’ view that.. the Labour Court has... passed the award, the operative portion of which reads thus; A W A P 0: The cia im petition filed by t•be first party worke.an is allowe.d in pa.rt. The order of. diem:i!5.al pass:.e:d: 1.: y th.:e second p er ty No sa/LJ14/saRS dated 29C3i9S8/Oi .04fl988 i set asides —5-. The second party is directed to reinstate the first patty into service with continuity of service. The second petty is directed to withhold two increments. The claim of the first petty f or the beck wages is rejected. Patties to beer their own costs.” While implementing the said award, the respondent employer passed the order dated 16—1—1995 at Annexure_O ordering reinstatement of the petitioner subject to the four conditions specified in the said Ansiexure_D. The first condition is that from 1—4.1988 i.e. from the date of the order of dismissal that came to be set aside by the Labour Court, until the date of reinstatement, the period would be considered as continued service. The second condition Lew is that the back wages would not 4 paid. The third condition is that the two annual Incre ments are withheld with cumulative effect. The fourth cendition, which the petitioner now seeks to be quashed in this writ petition, is that the petitioner should repay in instal— meats the interim relief that was paid to him er • _nç - pen.. :efe .“e b j)tflu .j te. a the Labour Court, i.e. the interim rtlie° of s.800/— per month as o’denet’ r, . o.I on 19’ a •1 3. -ri. 4, C. P’at,halcar, learned rounsel for the respondent, refers to the fol1owin’ obs’r— v 1 &n’ the abour Court i the a a d to tit b wiyoflesa p i met, haLeour Court, aching unier Zectior PA of the Act. .bbt1.uted not only withho1din of tin an•ual jg.e rent with umulet ye ef ct: “Erd f ju tice id b ufl if the petitioner is subJected to the punishment :f lcs ct beck çes e’d wit di t aC( e S curu ivt Pet ith a der o reins- atezent in sen vice . 3r . . ‘blaik for Ll* titio er,on he other • r a a t u ti decision r • 3tt6 .o db e in ‘ie CoufaC of e award, whet is paid by hSV of interim relief is h 5ubzibten allowmnce 1 and that ‘ht, &d S ti r ft the atio , or V ft cli we be A 4 —7— core even if the application u dec aertion 10(45) of the Act filed by the petitioner workman had 0 been diem&ssed by the taboos 0 oun For the renne to be p esently stateo it v old be unnecessary to pa into tb_s sprc’, 4 It is trve the Labour Court did refer to the punishment of dismissal froc service hemp disproportionate to the charge proved, end the necessity of substituting the lesser punishmeret What 5e discussed in the body of the sword, hnever, is not reflected in the operetive portion of the so ‘d. The operative portion of the award is extracted above. The said operative portion would shov that the only puniehment,by osy of lesser ptanistwent sebsti tuted,fl withholding of two increments, lb doubt, the spid opecetite poçtson refra to the ci 1* of ‘the petltioe fox back wages me hn,iqg been rejected. But the operative portion dde not reflect the *ibeisaion of Sri t C. abteetee for the respondent that denial at beck tepee is by yy of iesser punishment e only conebaton that roe Id, therefore, be dream by ending the pperative pprtian of the word s the the •rder of dtsslssai is set aside, and tbet the a —8— petitioner is to be reinstated in service with continuity of service but without back wages, with the punishment of withholding of two increments. The said operative portion of the award cannot be stretched to enable the respondent to recover from the petitioneç the amount paid as interim relief during the pendency of the dispute before the Labour Court. Labour Court did not so direct. It is onlysuch direction had been made could we have gone into the question as to whether the interim relief granted can ever be directed to be repaid at all, the same being in the nature Of subsistence allowance or whether it becomes necessary to repay the same when denial of full back wages is awarded as lesser punishment. tn this particular case, at least, this question does not arise for consideration because of the wordings of the oper.tive portion of the award as extracted above. In the circumstances, AnnexureeD issued by the respondent dated 16—1—1995 with regard to recovery of the amount paid as interim relief cannot be legally sustained. 0 C ;, C > ‘ 3 C lPb, 7 II 1 • ) \c\ V ) h 4 I C V a