Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.:— These three writ petitions are symbolic of the bureaucratic inefficiency in the Department of Transport, State of Haryana. A few facts, as emerging from the record of Civil Writ Petition No. 2401 of 1999, may be briefly noticed.
2. The services of respondent 1 were terminated by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, on September 11, 1987. The workman had raised an industrial dispute. On August 27, 1990 the Labour Court accepted his claim and ordered his reinstatement with full back-wages and continuity of service. In pursuance to the award, the workman was reinstated on March 14, 1991. However, the back-wages were not paid for a period of 4 years and 11 months. The actual payment was made on July 18, 1995. The workman complained that there was inordinately long delay in the release of back-wages. He, thus, filed a petition under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for the computation and award of interest at the rate of 15 per cent. Vide order, dated 13 August 1998, the Labour Court has sustained the claim of the workman. Hence this petition.
3. It is conceded that the position is identical in the remaining two cases also.
4. Sri Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to award interest on account of the delay in payment of back-wages.
5. The contention is wholly misconceived. In pursuance to the award, dated August 27, 1990, toe management should have made the payment of back-wages within a reasonable time. It took about seven months to reinstate the workman and thereafter almost five years were spent in paying the back-wages. During this long interval the petitioner kept the money which was rightfully due to the respondent. No justification for such in inordinately long delay in payment has been even offered at the hearing of the case. In such a situation, we find that the Labour Court was amply justified in upholding the claim of the respondent-workman. If the technical plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is accepted, it would lead to a grave miscarriage of justice. It would allow toe petitioner to take advantage of its own wrong. It would cause avoidable hardship to the workman. Such is not the spirit of the industrial law. Thus, no ground for interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution is made out.
6. No other point has been raised
7. Resultantly, all the three petitions are dismissed in limine.
8. We clarify that it would be open to the State Government to recover toe amount paid to the respondents from the officers responsible for the delay in making the payment.