Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And Another vs Pawan Singh And Another on 24 April, 2023
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13353 of 2023
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. And Another
Respondent :- Pawan Singh And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Tej Bhanu Pandey
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Tej Bhanu Pandey, learned counsel for he State-petitioner.
2. In the present writ petition, the order of the Labour Court, Saharanpur dated 24.04.2022 has been assailed before this Court.
3. The brief facts of the present case are that respondent No. 1-workman was appointed in the year 1985 for a period of three years on payment of fixed honorarium of Rs. 1506/- at Government Nalkoop No. 120 S.G. After working on the said post for a number of years, his services were terminated by order dated 19.12.1988. Subsequently a claim petition was preferred before the Labour Court, Dehradun which was decided on 23.10.1997 where the claim of the respondent-workman was allowed and the petitioner was directed to reinstate him forthwith and also to regularise his services as per Regularisation Rules, 1966.
4. Apart from the aforesaid order, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 500/- as compensation and 50% salary for the period he was out of service till the date of reinstatement. Against the aforesaid judgement dated 23.10.1997, a writ petition was filed being Writ Petition No. 32246 of 1998 which was dismissed on 31.10.2002. Aggrieved by the judgment of this Court, a special leave petition was preferred before Hon'ble the Supreme Court being S.L.P. No. 3809 of 2003 which was also dismissed on 17.12.2008 and even after dismissal of the S.L.P. , the order of the Labour Court dated 23.10.1997 was not complied with by the petitioner and accordingly recovery proceedings were initiated against the respondent-workman.
5. It is only in pursuance of the directions of this Court that the awarded amount was deposited though bank draft before the Registrar General of this Court.
6. The petitioner was reinstated the services of the respondent-workman only on 22/29.10.2009 and also considered his claim for regularisation after his reinstatement. The respondent workman continued to work till 30.06.2021 and retired on reaching the age of superannuation.
7. The dispute which is arisen in the present case is with regard to claim of salary of the respondent-workman from the date of award dated 23.10.1997 till 22/29.10.2009 when he was reinstated in service. His claim was that despite a clear order setting aside his termination and directing the petitioner to reinstate him in service, he was reinstated in service after a lapse of nearly 12 years and accordingly he claimed that he was entitled for salary for the said period. The claim petition No. 140 of 2012 has been allowed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court by means of impugned judgment dated 22.04.2022.
8. The Labour Court has held that despite the award of the respondent being allowed, the petitioner did not comply with the same till 22/29.10.2009, had the petitioner complied with the award, the respondent could have been in service since the date of award but it is only on account of non-compliance that he remained out of service till 2009.
9. The aforesaid facts are not disputed by the petitioner but submitted that only because the award was challenged by the State initially before the High Court and subsequently before Hon'ble the Supreme court and consequently the same was not complied with. No other ground or arguments has been raised assailing the said award. It is also submitted that there was no interim order in favour of the petitioner either by the High Court or by the Supreme Court.
10. This Court has considered the arguments of the petitioner as well as perused the material on record.
11. It is noticed that the petitioner who was working as a part time tube-well operator was appointed in the year 1985 and his services was terminated in the year 1988. He had filed a claim petition before the Labour Court which was allowed after contest by the petitioner by means of award dated 23.10.1997. The said award was assailed before this Court as well as before Hon'ble the Supreme Court where the petitioners preferred by the petitioner were dismissed and the award was upheld. After a lapse of nearly 12 years, the petitioner complied with the said award and being reinstated the respondent workman in service on 22/29.10.2009. The claim before the Labour Court on the second occasion was with regard to salary from the date of award till the date of reinstatement.
12. Needless to say that the award become effective and executable from the date which has been passed. The petitioner without any adequate reasons and merely on the ground that the said award has been assailed before the High Court and the Supreme Court failed to comply with the same. It is on account of delay in complying with the said award, an amount of Rs. 8,40,160/- has been granted to the respondent-workman as arrears of salary. There is no justification in not complying with the award of 1997. Having considered the arguments of the petitioner and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that there in no infirmity in the order passed by the Labour Court dated 22.04.2022. It is the petitioner itself who is responsible for the delay in complying with the said award and before this Court also no justification was shown for delay in compliance of the same.
13. In light of the above, the writ petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 24.4.2023
Ravi/-
