Allahabad High Court
U.P.S.R.T.C. vs State on 23 April, 2012
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4178 of 1994
Petitioner :- U.P.S.R.T.C.
Respondent :- State of U.P. and others
Petitioner Counsel :- D.K.S. Rathore
Respondent Counsel :- S.C.,Ajay Sharma
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation has filed this writ petition against the award of the Labour Court, Kanpur, dated 20.7.93, passed in Adjudication Case No. 170 of 1992. Under the aforesaid award it has been held that the workman, namely, Sri Girija Shanker was entitled to be retired on attaining the age of 60 years and not on attaining the age of 58 years and, therefore, he was to continue till he attains the age of 60 years i.e. up to 31.3.92 and all consequential benefits have been directed to be paid to him accordingly.
Challenging the award so made, counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the workman had retired on 31.3.1990. He accepted the retiral benefits and for the first time filed conciliation application only in the year 1990, which was numbered as C.B. No. 1413/90 resulting in the reference. He points out that such dispute with regard to the age of retirement having been raised after expiry of the period qua which continuance in the service was claimed by the workman, itself is sufficient to deny the benefit of the salary, etc. for this period on the principle of 'No Work No Pay'. He points out that in the year 1978 Standing Orders were framed for the employees working in the certain workshops of UPSRTC and for them the age of retirement was fixed as 60 years. Since the workman was never employed in that particular workshop and was only a clerk in the Etawah Depot of the Corporation, he is not entitled to the benefit of the said Standing Orders. Reference has also been made to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Lalta Prasad vs. U.P.S.R.T.C., Special Leave Petition No. 90 of 1991, decided on 14.12.1992, wherein it has been held that the benefit of retiring at the age of 60 years would be available only to the employees of three workshops, referred to in the Standing Orders, as amended in the year 1978, and none else.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the workman concerned was not working in the aforesaid three workshops, as noticed in the Division Bench judgment of this Court and therefore the award of the Labour Court, to the extent it has held that the workman was entitled to the benefit of Standing Order, is totally misplaced.
Having heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, I find that the Labour Court has failed to appreciate that the Division Bench of this Court has explained that the benefit of the Standing Order of the year 1978 would be applicable to the employees of only three workshops mentioned in the Standing Order itself. Admittedly, the workman in the present case was not employed in the aforesaid three workshops and therefore he would not be entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years. The award of the Labour Court is legally not justified and is hereby set aside.
Writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 23.4.2012
sks-grade iv
