Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Postmaster General vs Lrs. Of Late Bhanwar Singh ... on 7 February, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:7732]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7847/2024
1. Postmaster General, Head Post Office Pali Marwar.
2. Superintendent, Post Office Pali Marwar.
3. Post Master, Ho Pali Marwar.
4. Union Of India, Through Secretary Of Communication Dak
Bhawan New Delhi.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Lrs. Of Late Bhanwar Singh, Through -
2. Smt. Dariya Devi W/o Late Bhanwar Singh, Aged About
49 Years, 545 Bapu Nagar Vistar Pali Marwar.
3. Shri Praveen Singh S/o Late Bhanwar Singh, 545 Bapu
Nagar Vistar Pali Marwar.
4. Smt. Sarita W/o Ram Singh Panwar, Aged About 30 Years,
Brhamanon Ka Bas Pali Marwar.
5. Smt. Anita Kanwar W/o Vikram Singh, Aged About 29
Years, 37 Solankiyon Ka Bas Village Khod Distt Pali.
6. Smt. Suman W/o Amar Singh, Aged About 34 Years, 184
Janta Colony Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Bohra
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
07/02/2025
1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have
challenged the order dated 28.04.2023, passed by the learned
Industrial Dispute Tribunal and Labour Court, Jodhpur (hereinafter
referred to as 'Tribunal') to the extent of awarding interest at the
rate of 9% per annum from the date of order to the date of
making payment.
[2025:RJ-JD:7732] (2 of 4) [CW-7847/2024]
2. Precisely narrated, facts germane for the present purposes
are that one Bhanwar Singh, who was workman in the Postal
Department had raised an industrial dispute, when the petitioners
had dismissed him from the services. The reference made by the
competent authority was decided in his favour vide order dated
30.06.2017 and accordingly, workman was directed to be
reinstated with effect from 02.02.2015 apart from 50%
backwages from the date of the reference until he is reinstated in
the service.
3. The petitioners claim to have challenged the said award
dated 30.06.2017 by way of filing a writ petition (being S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.14461/2018), which is pending consideration,
however, no interim order has been passed so far in the said writ
petition.
4. The respondent - workman, thereafter moved an application
under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947'), which was registered
as Labour Case No.02/2019 before the Tribunal. During the
pendency of the application, the respondent - workman (Bhanwar
Singh) passed away and the matter was thereafter persued by his
legal representatives.
5. In the application under section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947
so filed, the salary from the date of reference of the dispute i.e.
02.02.2015 up to the date of filing the application (19.02.2018)
was claimed.
6. The Tribunal allowed such application filed under section 33-
C(2) of the Act of 1947 and directed the State to pay a sum of Rs.
1,30,062/- being the wages for the period between 02.02.2015 to
[2025:RJ-JD:7732] (3 of 4) [CW-7847/2024]
19.02.2018 within a period of two months from the date of order
i.e. 28.04.2023, however, with a further stipulation that in case
the amount is not paid by such time, the same would carry an
interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
7. Mr. Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the
Tribunal has no jurisdiction and power to award interest while
adjudicating the application filed under section 33-C(2) of the Act
of 1947, as the same does not contain any provision for interest.
8. In support of his contention, Mr. Bohra, learned counsel for
the petitioners has cited the judgment dated 22.04.2024 passed
by Allahabad High Court in the case of Executive Engineer
Electricity Transmission Division & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Chandra &
Anr. (Civil Writ No.-61111/2012).
9. Heard.
10. It is to be noted that stipulation regarding interest is only in
the event of the petitioners failing to pay the amount within the
period of two months.
11. According to this Court, while adjudicating the application
under section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947, even if there is no
provision for interest under the Act of 1947, it does not take away
the right of the Tribunal to direct payment of post award interest.
12. If such stipulation is not made, then a judgment would not
deter any judgment - debtor and the employer will not pay the
amount and keep the same pending till eternity. The stipulation as
given in the present case is governed by the provision of section
34 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and the same conforms to
the principles of justice, equity and good conscience.
[2025:RJ-JD:7732] (4 of 4) [CW-7847/2024]
13. So far as judgment cited by learned counsel for the
petitioners in the case of Executive Engineer Electricity
Transmission Division (supra) is concerned, the same is
inapplicable in the present factual matrix and is entirely based on
different fact-situation. The facts as noted in para No.2 of the
above referred judgment reveals that Tribunal in that case had
awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the delay in
making payment of pension while determining the amount itself
under section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947. In another words, the
interest became part of the award, whereas in the present case,
the stipulation of the interest at the rate of 9% per annum is post
decreetal award of interest.
14. In view of the discussion foregoing, this Court does not find
any error or infirmity in the order impugned. The writ petition is,
therefore dismissed.
15. The stay application also stands dismissed, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
1-akansha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
