(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the files of the Honble Labour Court, Madurai pertaining to its proceedings in CP No.58 of 2017 dated 30.11.2022 and quash the same.)

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Award dated 30.11.2022 passed by the Labour Court in C.P. No.58 of 2017 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, whereby the Labour Court directed the petitioner Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.14,83,412/- to the legal heirs of the deceased workman.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation submitted that the deceased workman, Shanmugavel Gandhi, was appointed as a temporary Driver on 16.06.1994. His services came to be terminated on 20.07.1995. It was submitted that the deceased workman raised an industrial dispute only in the year 2004 in I.D. No.5 of 2004. By an Award dated 27.08.2008, the Labour Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service. However, the Labour Court specifically declined to grant back wages and other attendant benefits, taking note of the fact that the workman was only a temporary employee. Challenging the said Award, the petitioner Corporation filed W.P.(MD) No.3663 of 2011, which came to be dismissed by this Court on 06.07.2012, thereby confirming the Award of the Labour Court. The writ appeal preferred thereafter by the Corporation was also dismissed by the Division Bench. Thereafter, the deceased workman filed C.P. No.58 of 2017 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming monetary benefits, including back wages, bonus, increments, performance incentive, leave salary and other consequential benefits for the period from 27.08.2008 to January 2017, claiming a sum of Rs. 12,882.50/- towards the monthly salary. The Labour Court, by the impugned Award dated 27.08.2008, determined the amount payable at Rs.14,83,412/-.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the learned counsel, the Labour Court in I.D. No.5 of 2004 had categorically denied the relief of back wages and other monetary benefits and granted only reinstatement with continuity of service. Therefore, the Labour Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2), could not have granted monetary benefits contrary to the earlier Award, which had attained finality. It was further submitted that proceedings under Section 33-C(2) are in the nature of execution proceedings and can be invoked only for enforcing a preexisting or accrued right. Since the claim for back wages and other attendant benefits had already been negatived in the industrial dispute, no such accrued right survived in favour of the deceased workman. Therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to compute and award such benefits.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that the deceased workman had served only for about one year and one month, from 16.06.1994 to 20.07.1995, as a temporary employee. Neither the Award in I.D. No.5 of 2004 nor the subsequent orders of this Court declared him to be a permanent employee. Therefore, awarding monetary benefits by treating him on par with regular employees is wholly unsustainable.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/legal heirs of the deceased workman submitted that once the Award directing reinstatement with continuity of service was confirmed by this Court, the Corporation ought to have implemented the Award immediately. Had the Award been implemented in time, the deceased workman would have continued in service and would have become entitled to regularisation and permanency in terms of the settlement entered into under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, under which employees who had completed 240 days of service were entitled to regularisation. The said settlement was also marked before the Labour Court. It was further submitted that before the Labour Court, the petitioner Corporation itself had filed a calculation memo admitting that a sum of Rs.14,83,412/- would be payable to the workman. Having admitted the computation, the petitioner cannot now challenge the Award passed on the basis of its own calculation. Therefore, the impugned Award does not warrant interference.

6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

7. There is no dispute that the deceased workman entered service on 16.06.1994 as a temporary Driver and that his services were terminated on 20.07.1995. It is also not in dispute that the industrial dispute questioning the order of termination was raised only in the year 2004, after nearly nine years. The Labour Court, by its Award dated 27.08.2008 in I.D. No.5 of 2004, directed reinstatement with continuity of service. Significantly, the Labour Court consciously declined to grant back wages and other attendant benefits. The said Award was affirmed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.3663 of 2011 and the writ appeal preferred by the Corporation also came to be dismissed. Thus, the Award attained finality.

8. The only question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the Labour Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, could award back wages and other monetary benefits which had already been declined in the earlier Award.

9. It is well settled that proceedings under Section 33-C(2) are in the nature of execution proceedings. The Labour Court can only compute monetary benefits flowing from a pre-existing right. It cannot create or adjudicate a fresh entitlement nor can it grant a benefit which has already been expressly declined in the earlier adjudication. In the present case, the claim for back wages and other attendant benefits was specifically negatived in I.D. No.5 of 2004. Therefore, no enforceable or pre-existing right existed in favour of the deceased workman to claim those benefits by invoking Section 33-C(2). Consequently, the Labour Court travelled beyond its jurisdiction in awarding the impugned amount. At the same time, this Court cannot ignore the undisputed fact that despite the Award of reinstatement having been confirmed by this Court on 06.07.2012, the petitioner Corporation did not reinstate the deceased workman. Had the Award been implemented promptly, the deceased workman would have at least rendered service from the date of reinstatement till his demise. The failure of the Corporation to implement the Award resulted in deprivation of the benefits flowing from reinstatement. Though the respondents are not legally entitled to claim back wages or other monetary benefits which stood rejected in the earlier Award, this Court is of the view that the legal heirs of the deceased workman deserve to be compensated for the prolonged non-implementation of the Award by the Corporation.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the short tenure of service rendered by the deceased workman, his status as a temporary employee, the delay in raising the industrial dispute, the finality attached to the Award denying back wages and at the same time the Corporation's failure to implement the reinstatement order, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met by awarding a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondents/legal heirs of the deceased workman as a one-time full and final settlement.

11. Accordingly, the impugned Award dated 30.11.2022 passed in C.P. No.58 of 2017 is set aside. In lieu thereof, the petitioner Corporation is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the respondents/legal heirs of the deceased workman as one-time compensation, in full and final settlement of all claims arising out of the dispute.

12. With the above modification, the Writ Petition stands partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.