CWP 13587/09 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH SB Civil Writ Petition No. 13587/2009 Sh. Ramgopal Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan & others. DATE OF ORDER : 30/10/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Sharad Joshi, for petitioner. *** Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with grievance that interest, which was due and payable to him in terms of the order rejecting application filed by the respondents under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide order dated 26th December, 1979, has not been awarded to him as yet. This case certainly has a checkered history. After rejection of application under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act vide order dt. 26/12/1979, since the petitioner was not reinstated and at the same time the order was assailed by the respondents before this Court and finally has been settled down by the Apex Court vide judgment dt. 17/01/2002 (Anx.4) holding that if the application under Section 33(2)(b) has been rejected, the workman, as a consequence thereof, becomes entitled to be reinstated in service and the mechanism provided under Section 33(A) has CWP 13587/09 [2] no application in such matters. It appears from the record that after the judgment of Apex Court the petitioner was reinstated in service but his grievance subsisted so far as payment of salary which was claimed by him through application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act and an amount of back wages was computed vide order dated 01/03/1985. However, as alleged by the petitioner, part payment towards interest was also made to him and at the stage when the matter was examined by this Court in a contempt petition, bearing No. 241/2003 preferred by the petitioner in which petitioner raised his grievance that the interest for which he is entitled in terms of the order of the Labour Court has not been properly computed. However, this Court, while disposing of the contempt petition vide order dated 16/01/2009, observed that computation of the quantum of payable interest, since has been seriously disputed, can be made only by the mechanism provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 itself. The petitioner certainly has not availed the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act but has approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition. Counsel for petitioner submits that the CWP 13587/09 [3] petitioner is a senior citizen and during whole of his service he remained in litigation and for the part payment towards interest, if he is now being called upon to avail the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, he may not get final justice in his life time, in such circumstances, this Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It appears from the record and as observed (supra), that there was non-compliance of the order of this Court only to the extent of payment of interest and submissions were made by the petitioner only to the effect that interest has not been properly computed. However, the petitioner alleged that he should have been paid interest of Rs. 1,55,000/- against which the respondents have paid a sum of Rs. 1,13,919/- towards interest as per the directions of the Labour Court and what has been prayed for towards interest and computed by the petitioner in compliance of the order of the Labour Court has been disputed by the respondents and in such circumstances, this Court while deciding contempt petition observed that since the computation of payment towards interest has been seriously disputed between the parties, this could be examined only by way of mechanism provided under CWP 13587/09 [4] Industrial Disputes Act. This Court has sympathy with the petitioner, who is a senior citizen but the fact which has been seriously disputed, as observed by this Court, the same cannot be adjudicated within the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy available under Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, I find no substance in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu-13587-CW-2009-final.doc