Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Sirsat Lodge, challenged an order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Labour and Employment, Panaji, in CLE/(REC-17)/2011. The Commissioner held that the respondent workman, Mashnu Gawade, could not be retired at the age of 60 years and was entitled to receive wages including back wages as claimed. The respondent was employed as a helper with the petitioner and his services were terminated on 1.6.1989. He raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an award of reinstatement with 60% back wages on 1.10.1999. The petitioner challenged this award in Writ Petition No. 246/2000. During the pendency of that petition, the respondent filed an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was allowed on 20.9.2001. The High Court disposed of Writ Petition No. 246/2000 on 5.5.2011, modifying the award to 40% back wages instead of 60%, but did not interfere with other reliefs. The respondent then filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act for computation of wages, which was allowed by the Commissioner. The petitioner argued that the respondent had already been paid all dues and that the retirement age should be 58 years. The High Court found no perversity or illegality in the Commissioner's order and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Retirement Age - Workman's Entitlement to Wages - The Commissioner held that the respondent workman could not be retired at the age of 60 years and was entitled to receive wages including back wages as claimed. The High Court upheld the order, finding no perversity or illegality. (Paras 1-5)
B) Industrial Law - Back Wages - Modification of Award - The High Court in earlier proceedings modified the Tribunal's award of 60% back wages to 40% but did not interfere with other reliefs. The Commissioner's order for back wages was consistent with the modified award. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent workman could be retired at the age of 60 years and whether he was entitled to wages including back wages as claimed.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Commissioner's order dated 12.11.2013.
Law Points
- Retirement age of workman
- Section 17-B Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- back wages
- reinstatement
- modification of award
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (04) 116
WRIT PETITION NO. 760 OF 2013
Mr. L. J. Deva for petitioner, Mr. Gaurish Agni for respondent
M/s Sirsat Lodge, Represented by its partner, Shri Suhas Jayram Sirsat
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of Commissioner, Labour and Employment regarding retirement age and back wages of workman.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the Commissioner's order holding that respondent cannot be retired at 60 years and is entitled to wages including back wages.
Filing Reason
Petitioner challenged the Commissioner's order dated 12.11.2013 in CLE/(REC-17)/2011.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Tribunal award dated 1.10.1999 of reinstatement with 60% back wages; High Court order dated 5.5.2011 in WP 246/2000 modifying back wages to 40%.
Issues
Whether the respondent workman could be retired at the age of 60 years.
Whether the respondent was entitled to wages including back wages as claimed.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the respondent had already been paid all dues and that the retirement age should be 58 years.
Respondent contended that he was entitled to wages including back wages as per the award and subsequent orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The Commissioner's order was not perverse or illegal; the respondent workman was entitled to wages including back wages as per the modified award and Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Judgment Excerpts
This Writ Petition is preferred against the order dated 12.11.2013 in CLE/(REC-17)/2011 by Commissioner, Labour and Employment, Panaji holding that respondent cannot be retired at the age of 60 years and is entitled to receive wages, including back wages as claimed by him.
Procedural History
The respondent's services were terminated on 1.6.1989. He raised an industrial dispute, referred to Industrial Tribunal, which passed an award of reinstatement with 60% back wages on 1.10.1999. Petitioner challenged in WP 246/2000; during pendency, respondent filed application under Section 17-B allowed on 20.9.2001. WP 246/2000 disposed on 5.5.2011 modifying back wages to 40%. Respondent then filed application under Section 33-C(2) for computation of wages, allowed by Commissioner on 12.11.2013. Petitioner filed present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 17-B, 33-C(2)
