MANAGEMENT OF NILPUR TEA ESTATEversusSTATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

A                MANAGEMENT OF NILPUR TEA ESTATE
                                v.
                     STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

                              NOVEMBER 17, 1995

B         [AM. AHMADI, CJI, N.P. SINGH AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]

          Labour Laws :

          Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
c         S.33-C(2)-Back wages till temiination of service-Since temiination
    order not challenged, the relationship of employer-Employee ceased on the
    date of temiination-Order of Courts below modified to that extenr-Payment
    of backwage~Directions issued.

D         A charge-sheet was issued by the appellant against the third respon-
    dent alleging certain misconduct under the standing order. Thereafter a
    domestic enquiry was held and on the basis of the report of the Enquiry
    Officer, his services were terminated. An industrial dispute was raised, and
    reference of the dispute was made for adjudication to the Labour Court,
    which gave an award setting aside the order of termination and directing
E
    that the respondent be reinstated.

          The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court questioning
    the validity of the award. The writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge.
    The writ appeal was also dismissed.           ·
F
           During the peJ>dency of writ petition respondent was reinstated but
    his services were terminated against. He was also called upon to collect his
    back wages. The second order of termination after reinstatement of the
    respondent was not challenged and no dispute was raised. A letter was
    addressed by the appellant to the respondent requesting him to hand over
G   possess.ion of the staff quarter as his services had already been terminated.
    A Title Suit was also filed, for recovery of vacant possession of the said
    quarter. The respondent filed an application under section 33-C(2) of the
    Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court for computation of the
    amount of money due to him as back wages payable by the appellant. The
H   Labour Court directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 1,54,851 as
                                         466
  MANAGEMENTOFNILPUR TEAESTATEv. STATE[N.P.SINGH,J.]467

dues towards the wages and other benefits payable to the respondent for        A
the period commencing from 1.2.1982 when the services of the said respon-
dent were terminated, till March 1994. The writ petition as well writ appeal
challenging the said order of Labour Court were dismissed by the High
Court. Hence this appeal.

        Partly allowing the appeal, this Court                                 B

       HELD : 1. As no step had been taken by the respondent to question
the legality or otherwise of th~ order of termination dated 19.4.1988 the
said order could not have been ignored by the Labour Court or the High
Court, for purposes of calculating the amount which remained due and is
payable to the respondent. Unless the said order of termination is held to
                                                                             c
be invalid, it cannot be ignored in a proceeding under section 33-C(2) of
the Act. In view of the order dated 19.4.1988 it has to be assumed that the
services of the respondent had been terminated and tht: relationship as
employer and workman between the appellant and the said respondent
came to an end on 19.4.1988, because of which the said respondent was not D
entitled to claim any back wages after 18.4.1988. In such a situation, there
is no option but to modify the orders of the Labour Court as well as of the
High Court to the extent that the back wages and other benefits which had
been computed by the Labour Court as the amount payable to the respon-
dent, has to be calculated till 18.4.1988. Consequently, the direction to E
make payment upto March, 1994 is set aside and it shall be restricted to
the period from 1.2.1982 to 18.4.1988. [469-E-H; 470-A]

      2. It is directed that the dues payable to the respondent in terms of
this order be paid to the respondent within two months by calculating the
dues payable to the said respondent upto 18.4.1988, if not already paid.       F
                                                                 [470-C-D]
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10610 of
1995.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 15.5.95 of the Assam High G
Court in W.A. No. 76 of 1995.

        P.K. Goswami, Rajiv Mehta, Ms. Anita Sahni and Kailash Vasdev for
the Appellant.

        P. Chowdhary for the Respondents.                                      H
    468                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          N.P. SINGH, J. Leave granted.

           This appeal has been filed on behalf of the Management of Nilpur
    Tea Estate for setting aside the order dated 8.2.1995 passed by a learned
B   Judge of the Guwahati High Court, dismissing the writ petition filed on
    behalf of the appellant, for quashing the order passed by the Labour Court
    under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred
    to ·as the 'Act'). The order aforesaid has been affirmed by the Division
    Bench by dismissal of the writ appeal by its order dated 15.5.1995.
c         A charge-sheet was issued by the appellant on 9.10.1981 against the
    third respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent') alleging
    certain misconduct under the standing order. Thereafter a domestic en-
    quiry was held and on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer by
    order dated 1.2.1982 the services of the said respondent were terminated.
D   On an industrial dispute being raised, reference of the dispute was made ;.
    for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court gave its award
    which was published in the gazette in January 1988. By the aforesaid award,
    the order of termination was set aside and a direction was given that
    respondent be reinstated.
E          A writ petition was filed on behalf of the appellant before the High
    Court questioning the validity of the award aforesaid. The said writ petition
    was dismissed on 24.6.1993 by a learned Judge upholding the order of the
    Labour Court directing reinstatement. The writ appeal filed on behalf of
    the appellant was also dismissed on 29.9.1993. It may be mentioned that
F   during the pendency of writ petition respondent was reinstated but on
    19.4.1988 the appellant communicated an order to the said respondent
    again terminating his services. He was also called upon to collect his back
    wages. There is no dispute that the second order of termination after
    reinstateinent of the respondent as per direction given by the Labour
G   Court, was not challenged and no dispute was raised in respect of the said
    order dated 19.4.1988. On 11.10.1993 a letter was addressed by the appel-
    lant to the said respondent requesting him to hand over possession of the
    staff quarter as his services had already been terminated on 19.4.1988. A
    Title Suit No. 2/94 was also filed in the Court of the Assistant District
    Judge, Tejpur for recovery of vacant possession of the said quarter. Then
H   the respondent filed an application under section 33-C(2) of the Act before
  MANAGEMENTOFNILPUR TEAESTATEv. STATE [N.P.SINGH,J.]469

the Labour Court on 16.2.1994 for computation of the amount of money A
due to him as back wages payable by the appellant. On that petition the
Labour Court directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 1,54,851 as
dues towards the wages and other benefits payable to the respondent for
the period commencing from 1.2.1982 when the services of the said respon-
dent were terminated till March 1994. The writ petition as well writ appeal B
challenging the said order of Labour Court under section 33-C(2), were
dismissed by the High Court saying that there was no error apparent on
the face of the order of the Labour Court calling for an interference by the
High Court.

       On behalf of the appellant it was pointed out that there was no     c
dispute in the present case that second order of termination of the services
of the respondent dated 19.4.1988 had remained unchallenged and validity
thereof had never been questioned by the respondent before any forum. It
was also pointed out that the said order had been communicated to the
respondent, who completely ignored the same and only when the aforesaid D
communication dated 11.10.1993 was issued by the appellant requiring the
respondent to hand over possession of the staff quarter, the aforesaid
petition under section 33-C(2) was filed for computation of the arrears of
back wages. As no step had been taken by the respondent to question the
legality or otherwise of the order of termination dated 19.4.1988 the said
order could not have been ignored by the Labour Court or the High Court, E
for purposes of calculating the amount which remained due and is payable
to the respondent. To put it in other words, the Labour Court or the High
Court could not have directed payment to the respondent for period after
19.4.1988 when the services of the respondent were terminated afresh. The
counsel for the respondent could not take a stand that respondent had F
challenged the aforesaid order dated 19.4.1988 terminating his services
after being reinstated. Unless the said order of termination is held to be
invalid, it cannot be ignored in a proceeding under section 33-C(2) of the
Act. The counsel who appeared for the respondent could not explain as to
why the order of termination dated 19.4.1988 was completely ignored by G
the respondent. In view of the order dated 19.4.1988 it has to be assumed
that the services of the respondent had been terminated and the relation-
ship as employer and workman between the appellant and the said respon-
dent came to an end on 19.4.1988, because of which the said respondent
was not entitled to claim any back wages after 18.4.1988. In such a situation,
we are left with no option but to modify the orders of the Labour Court H
    470                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   as well as of the High Court to the extent that the back wages and other
    benefits which had been computed by the Labour Court as the amount
    payable to the respondent, has to be calculated till 18.4.1988. Consequently,
    the direction to make payment upto March, 1994 is set aside and it shall
    be restricted to the period from 1.2.1982 to 18.4.1988.

B         On behalf of the respondent, our attention was drawn to an order of
    the High Court in a contempt proceeding initiated by the said respondent.
    The counsel who appeared for the appellant had given an undertaking that
    the appellant shall pay all the dues to the said respondent within the time
    fixed in the said order. That order according to us is of no help to the
C   respondent. Now that has to be read as the amount which in law is due to
    the respondent. We, accordingly, direct that the dues payable to the
    respondent in terms of this order be paid to the respondent within two
    months from today, by calculating the dues payable to the said respondent
    upto 18.4.1988, if not already paid.

D        The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be
    no order as to costs.

    G.N.                                                        Appeal allowed.