JUDGMENT
S.S. Saron J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing the order dated December 1, 1999, passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, the first respondent (for short “the Industrial Tribunal”), whereby the application of the petitioner-workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), has been dismissed.
2. The question which is involved in the present case is whether the petitioner, who is a bank employee, would, in the facts and: circumstances of this case be entitled to benefits other than wages last drawn by him on his reinstatement while stay granted in terms of Section 17B of the Act against his reinstatement by the Industrial Tribunal was operating in the writ petition filed by the second respondent-bank, which has also been ultimately allowed in the Letters Patent Appeal and the matter remitted to the Industrial Tribunal for readjudication and also, when a similar claim though for different periods, stands declined by the Industrial Tribunal.
3. In order to appreciate the question involved, the brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present writ petition may be noticed.
The petitioner was appointed as clerk-cum-typist by the second respondent, the Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as “the bank”), on October 17, 1970. He was promoted to the post of staff officer on December 1, 1976. During his service with the bank, his services were terminated, vide order dated November 26, 1983. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute against the said termination and the appropriate Government, vide its order dated February 11, 1986, referred the same to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal adjudicated upon the dispute as to whether the action of the bank in terminating the services of the petitioner was legal and justified and if so, to what relief the workman is entitled. After considering the material on record, the Industrial Tribunal, vide its award dated April 9, 1987, annexure P1. held that the termination order of the petitioner was not passed by the competent authority. Accordingly, he was entitled to reinstatement to his post with full back wages. The bank filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3148 of 1987 in this Court against the aforesaid award dated April 9, 1987, annexure P1. This Court, while issuing notice of motion, stayed the operation of the said award subject to the provisions of Section 17B of the Act on May 27, 1987. The said writ petition was admitted on October 1, 1987, and the stay was directed to continue with the further condition that the bank shall pay the workman back wages awarded by the Labour Court within a month from the order subject to the workman furnishing surety to the satisfaction of the Labour Commissioner, Central, Chandigarh. The bank, however, reinstated the petitioner on October 31, 1987, annexure P4, and it was stated that his hack wages were being credited to his savings bank account. The petitioner accordingly reported for duty and he joined on November 2, 1987. The petitioner thereafter made a grievance that the amount of back wages was short. He accordingly moved an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act claiming a sum of Rs. 60,000. The petitioner thereafter submitted another application dated March 31, 1989, annexure P6, under Section 33-C(2) of the Act claiming that he was entitled to an amount of Rs. 12,300 as per the statement annexed to the said application. On the said application dated March 31, 1989, the order dated December 1, 1999, annexure P9, declining the claim of the petitioner was passed, which is assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition.
4. It is during the pendency of the second application, annexure P6, under Section 33C(2) of the Act claiming a sum of Rs. 12,300 that Civil Writ Petition No. 3148 of 1987 filed by the bank was dismissed on March 11, 1991, annexure P7. While dismissing the writ petition, this Court upheld the award dated April 9, 1987, annexure P1 of the Industrial Tribunal. It was further observed that since the petitioner has been reinstated in implementation of the award, however, he had not been paid full back wages. If that was so, the bank was directed to clear the arrears of his salary with the full back wages admissible to him under the rules from the date of termination of his services, i.e., November 26, 1983, till the date of reinstatement, within a period of two months, failing which the bank was to pay interest at 12 per cent. per annum on the amount due from the date it became due till the date of actual disbursement.
5. Against the said order dated March, 1991, annexure P7, passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 3148 of 1987, the bank filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 425 of 1991. The said appeal was allowed, vide order dated February 6, 1996, annexure P8 and the judgment of the learned single judge dated March 11, 1991, annexure P7, and also the award dated April 9, 1987, annexure P1, were set aside for the limited purposes and the Tribunal was directed to make fresh inquiry regarding the validity of the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer against the workman and give his finding thereupon. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal. It is thus after the remand that the Tribunal passed the impugned order dated December 1, 1999, annexure P9, on the second application dated March 31, 1989, annexure P6 under Section 33C(2) of the Act.
6. Notice was issued in the case and the bank has filed its written statement. It has been contended that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. In fact his services were terminated after the passing of the order dated February 6, 1996, annexure P8, by the Letters Patent Bench of this Court. The copy of the order dated March 12, 1996, dispensing with the services of the petitioner has been placed on record as annexure R2/1. It has also been contended that the application under Section 33C(2) of the Act was filed after his reinstatement, in pursuance of the award dated April 9, 1987, annexure P1, and that the same had already been set aside by a Letters Patent Bench of this Court on February 6, 1996, annexure P8. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed in the application dated March 31, 1989, annexure P6. The other factual aspects with regard to the petitioner serving the bank and his termination and the passing of the award by the Industrial Tribunal, the order in the civil writ petition and the Letters Patent appeal are admitted. It is, however, stated that no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed and he is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the records of the case.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, after his reinstatement in service of the bank, is entitled to all benefits of wages drawn by him and the learned Industrial Tribunal erred in not granting the same by placing reliance on the agreed order dated May 29, 1991, passed in the Letters Patent Appeal, which in fact inhered only during the pendency of the appeal and not thereafter. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Punjab State Electricity Board v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court 1995-I-LLJ-666. He further contends that the impugned award dated December 1, 1999, annexure P9, is absolutely unreasonable inasmuch as the petitioner is entitled to receive the amount claimed from the bank and that this amount is capable of being commuted in terms of money and since the petitioner had been taken back in service he is entitled to the consequential benefits also in accordance with the rules.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-bank contends that the petitioner is not entitled to the said benefit as the order of his reinstatement in service passed by the Industrial Tribunal, was initially upheld by the learned single Judge, in the writ petition filed by the bank but has ultimately been set aside in the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the bank and the matter has been remitted to the learned Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. He, therefore, contends that the writ petition merits dismissal.
9. As already noticed above, the petitioner initially filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act, in which he claimed the payment of Rs. 60,000. The details of the amount of Rs. 60,000 which was claimed are as under:
(Rs.)
Fitment under PCR: Additional 10,000
Increment for each part of CAIIB examination from July 1, 1979,
to January, 1988 20,000
Annual increment from October, 1983, to October, 1987 10,000
Payment of conveyance allowance at Rs. 150 from October, 1983,
to October, 1987 7,200
House rent allowance from November 26, 1983, to May 26, 1987, and to
1st February, 1988, at Rs. 300 but paid only on Rs. 165 p.m.
(less paid amount) 7,500
Seniority prior to the termination and consequential benefits October
1983 to January, 1988 3,330
10. The learned Labour Court, after detailed consideration of this case, vide order dated July 31, 1989, annexure P5, rejected the said claim. A perusal of the order shows that the parties were allowed to lead evidence in support of their claim and evidence was led. The bank had contested the claim of the workman on the ground that there was no automatic provision for annual grant of increments and the fitment under PCR benefits. Further, the petitioner was not entitled to any conveyance allowance and was only entitled to reimbursement of the transfer expenses. Besides, he was not entitled to house rent allowance on account of his seniority. It was also the stand of the bank that in view of the orders passed by this Court on May 27, 1987, July 28, 1987, and October 1, 1987, the petitioner is entitled to full back wages for the period from November 26, 1983, to April 9, 1987, i.e., from the date of termination till the date of award. Besides, he is entitled to pay during the pendency of the petition at the rate last pay drawn. The Tribunal, on the above contentions rejected the claim by making the following observations:
“Keeping in view that matter regarding termination is pending for final decision before the Honorable High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3148 of 1987, he is not entitled to any deemed increments and other deemed benefits in absence of any specific order of the High Court, which has only allowed benefits of full wages for the period November 26, 1983, to April 9, 1987, and future wages from April 10, 1987, till the decision of the writ at the rate last drawn. It is none of his case if he had not been paid back wages for the period November 26, 1983, to April 9, 1987, or that he is not being paid wages during the pendency of the writ petition at the rate last drawn. There is no merit in this petition and the same is rejected as dismissed.”
11. The petitioner has not challenged the said order dated July 31, 1989, annexure P5 of the Tribunal. However, during the pendency of the said application, he filed another application dated March 31, 1989, annexure P6, in which he claimed the following relief:
(Rs.)
“Increments 3,100
Bank of India (Officer’s) Service Regulations, 1979, Regulations 5 addition
thereto, to provide for grant of an additional increment for passing each
part of the CAIIB examination by officer staff.
Claim from February, 1988, to March, 1989, annual increments from the period 5,500
from November, 1987, to October, 1988.
House rent allowance from February, 1988, to March, 1989, at Rs. 300 to be 1,200
but less paid
Seniority prior to the termination and consequential benefits from February, 1,300
1988, to March, 1989
Fitment under PCR 1,200
Head office circular No. 82/50, dated August 18, 1982, regarding correction
in pay of officer's promotion to the officer's cadre prior to November 1, 1978.
Advancement of date of increment from date of promotion to the date of
anniversary date of clerical increment claim from
February, 1988, to March, 1989.
Total 12,300
12. The above claims in fact if not entirely the same, are somewhat similar to the one in respect of which the claim had been made for an amount of Rs. 60,000. In fact the period of claim is different but the nature of the claim is similar. Therefore, this claim of Rs. 12,300 was in fact liable to be considered along with the claim raised for an amount of Rs. 60,000 which has been considered by the Tribunal in terms of its order dated July 31, 1989, annexure P5. However, it was not considered and it is not shown as to whether the petitioner even made any application for clubbing both the cases, which he could have done as the order claiming an amount of Rs. 60,000 was passed on July 31, 1989, annexure P5 and the second application under Section 33C(2) of the Act, is dated March 31, 1989, annexure P6. It may also be noticed that the Industrial Tribunal in its order dated July 31, 1989, annexure P5, rejected the claim of the petitioner in view of the pendency of Civil Writ Petition No. 3148 of 1987 holding that he was not entitled to any deemed increments and other deemed benefits in the absence of any specific order of this Court. As already noticed above, Civil Writ Petition No. 3184 of 1987 filed by the bank was dismissed by this Court on March 11, 1991, annexure P7.
13. The said order was set aside by the Letters Patent Bench of this Court on February 6, 1996, annexure P8 in L.P.A. No. 425 of 1991, which would mean that the directions contained in the order dated March 11, 1991, annexure P7 passed in the writ petition of the bank became inconsequential. In the orders passed in the Letters Patent appeal, the Industrial Tribunal has been directed to make a fresh inquiry regarding the validity of the inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer, against the workman and give its finding thereupon. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on February 19, 1996. In consequence of the order dated February 6, 1996, annexure P8, passed in the Letters Patent appeal, the bank terminated the services of the petitioner, vide order dated March 12, 1996, annexure R2/1, as the award dated April 9, 1987, annexure P1, reinstating him in service was also set aside and the matter was to be adjudicated afresh.
14. The question that now arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for Rs. 12,300 as claimed in his application dated March 31, 1989, annexure P6. This claim has been rejected by the Industrial Tribunal, vide its impugned award dated December 1, 1999, annexure P9. The Industrial Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner primarily on the ground that an agreed order had been passed by this Court on May 29, 1991, that till decision of the Letters Patent appeal the arrears of wages shall not be paid to the workman. The order dated May 29, 1991, passed by the Letters Patent Bench of this Court reads as under:
“The point involved in the stay matter has been settled by an agreement arrived at between the parties to the effect that Shri B.K. Sareen, staff officer, Bank of India, (second respondent) will be posted in the Ambala Cantonment Branch, which is stated to be probably near Norton Motors. The parties have also agreed that the order of G. S. MAJITHIA J., dated April 16, 1991, passed in Civil Revision No. 1180 of 1990, would stand modified in view of the agreement arrived at today between the parties.
Mr. Sibal has made a statement at the Bar that Shri B.K. Sareen be directed to join his duties at the Ambala Cantonment Branch on Monday, i.e., June 3, 1991, and to attend the bank regularly.
Accordingly, the Bank of India is directed to post Shri B.K. Sareen at Ambala Cantonment Branch.
The arrears will not be paid to Shri B.K. Sareen pending decision of the Letters Patent Appeal.
In case, Shri B.K. Sareen absents himself from duty, the bank would be at liberty to resort to disciplinary proceedings against him in accordance with the service rules. If he fails to take notice thereof, it would be open to them to proceed ex parte against him.
With this order and directions, the civil miscellaneous application stands disposed of.”
The perusal of the above order dated May 29, 1991, shows that the arrears were not to be paid to the petitioner pending decision of the Letters Patent Appeal.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that this order was to be operated only during the pendency of the appeal and not thereafter and that since he has been reinstated, he is entitled to all consequential benefits. In support of his contentions he has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (supra).
16. The contention as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not assailed the order dated July 31, 1989, annexure P5. As already observed above, the relief claimed in two applications under Section 33C(2) of the Act is similar and only the period for which the relief is claimed is different. The parties are also the same. Therefore, in the above circumstances when the Labour Court had itself, vide its order dated July 31, 1989, annexure P5, rejected the claim of the petitioner in view of the pendency of the litigation, a similar claim for a different period cannot be granted in view of the finality attained in the earlier order dated July 31, 1989, annexure P5. The reasoning recorded by the learned Tribunal that a consent order had been passed between the parties in the Letters Patent Appeal though is not applicable inasmuch as the said order was in operation only till the decision of the Letters Patent appeal and the same having been allowed, it cannot continue thereafter. The Tribunal in its order dated July 31, 1989, annexure P5, specifically held that the petitioner is not entitled to any deemed increments and other deemed benefits in the absence of order of the High Court, which had allowed benefits in terms of its various orders for the limited benefit. This order being final and not challenged by the petitioner, now cannot be agitated, though for a different period, and that too, when the Letters Patent Bench of this Court has set aside the award dated April 9, 1987, annexure P1, reinstating the petitioner in service. In so far as the case of Punjab State Electricity Board (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it may be noticed that in the said case, the services of the workman were terminated and on a reference made to the Labour Court he was reinstated in service with continuity of service and full back wages. The electricity board challenged the award of the Labour Court and this Court admitted the writ: petition and stayed the operation of the award and subsequently, the stay was modified subject to the provisions of Section 17B of the Act. The electricity board then reinstated the workman and paid the wages at the initial stage of the current pay scale and no increments were granted. The workman filed an application seeking direction to the board to pay him increment to which he is entitled under the award. This was resisted by the electricity board on the ground that he was not entitled for the increments as he had not worked for the period during which these increments had accrued. It was held by this Court that since the workman had been reinstated, the Electricity Board must pay him other benefits as flowing from such reinstatement to which he has been found entitled by the Labour Court and he shall be deemed to have worked when he was out of employment and that since the workman therein was found entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, he would be deemed to have worked for the period when he was out of employment, such period has to be counted for the purposes of giving him increments. It was held that the current wages would, therefore, include the amounts which had accrued to the workman by reason of the increments which would have been paid to him had he not been out of employment. However, the said case is confined to its own facts. In the case in hand, this Court in C.W.P. No. 3148 of 1987 filed by the respondent-bank had, vide interim orders dated May 27, 1987, July 28, 1987, and October 1, 1987, as referred to in the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated July 31, 1989, annexure P5, ordered that the petitioner was entitled tb full back wages for the period from November 26, 1983, to April 9, 1987, i.e., from the date of termination till the date of award and he was held entitled to pay during the pendency of the writ at the pay last drawn. The said orders dated May 27, 1987, July 28, 1987, and October 1, 1987, read as under:
“May 27, 1987
Notice of motion for August 20, 1987.
Operation of the impugned award is stayed subject to the provisions of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
My 28, 1987
An affidavit as envisaged by Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act has been filed. Mr. L.M. Suri states that the petitioner bank shall pay the respondent workman wages at the rate last drawn with effect from May 27, 1987, and shall continue to pay the same every month by 10th, during the pendency of this writ petition. The question of payment of back wages shall be determined on the next date of hearing.
October 1, 1987 Admitted.
Stay to continue with a further condition that the petitioner shall pay the second respondent back wages, awarded to by the Labour Court, within a month from today subject to the second respondent furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Labour Commissioner, Central, Chandigarh, to be accepted after notice to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled to deduct there from the money of the instalments of the loan which had remained unpaid till then.”
17. Therefore, there being specific orders of this Court in the case in hand, the same cannot be side tracked so as to give the benefit, which this Court has not granted during the pendency of the writ petition filed by the bank. Besides, the award dated April 9, 1987, annexure P1 reinstating the petitioner in service having been set aside, the claims as made cannot now be granted. Even the stay that was granted was subject to Section 17B of the Act, which provides for the liability of the employer to pay a workman during the pendency of any proceedings in the High Court “full last wages drawn” by him inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period. The expression “full wages last drawn” has been interpreted by the honourable Apex Court in Dena Bank v. Kirtikumar Patel, AIR 1998 SC 511 : 1999 (2) SCC 106 : 1998-I- LLJ-1, to mean wages drawn by the workman at the time when he was terminated from service. The object of Section 17B, it was observed, was to alleviate to a certain extent hardship that is caused to the workman due to delay in implementation of award during the pendency of proceedings in which the said award is challenged before the High Court or the Supreme Court. Besides, the payment, which is required to be made by the employer of the workman, is in the nature of subsistence allowance, which cannot be refunded or recovered from the workman even if the award is set aside by the High Court or the Supreme Court. It was also held that the expression “wages last drawn” occurring in Section 17B does not include yearly increments and dearness allowance admissible from time to time subsequent to the impugned termination or dismissal.
18. Therefore, in view of the above dictum of the Apex Court the benefit of the claim of Rs. 12,300 in terms of an application dated March 31, 1989, annexure P6, which has been declined in pursuance of the impugned order dated December 1, 1999, annexure P9, would amount to enlarging the scope of full wages last drawn which is payable in terms of Section 17B of the Act as held by the Apex Court in Dena Bank’s case, (supra)
19. However, the grant of further benefits for the period that petitioner has worked would now be dependent on the outcome of the award of the Labour Court on the matter having been remitted to it by the Letters Patent Bench in terms of its order dated February 6, 1996, annexure P8. The impugned order dated December 1, 1999, annexure P9, has declined the consequential benefits in view of the various interim orders passed by this Court in the civil writ petition and Letters Patent Appeal filed by the bank. Since the matter is to be re-examined in the light of orders dated February 6, 1996, annexure P8, passed by the Letters Patent Bench, it would be just and expedient that the claims of the petitioner for consequential benefits are also considered only in case his termination is to be set aside.
20. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. It would, however, be open to the Industrial Tribunal to consider due claims of the petitioner as consequential benefits only in case his termination is set aside, and any observations made herein shall not preclude it from adjudicating upon the said claims in the event of the petitioner’s termination being set aside.
21. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.