Uttarakhand High Court
D. V. Singh vs Vice-Chancellor on 26 February, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No.2580 of 2016 (M/S)
D. V. Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
Vice-Chancellor, G.B. Pant University
of Agriculture & Technology ...Respondent
Advocate : Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Subhag
Dobhal, Advocate for the respondent.
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
The petitioner, who is workmen had filed this writ
petition for the following reliefs:-
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased:-
"(i) To set aside the impugned Judgment dated
07.05.2016 passed by the learned Labour Court,
Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Case No.19 of 2011
(D.V. Singh vs. Vice-Chancellor, G.B. Pant
University of Agriculture and Technology), in so far
as it relates to rejection of Prayer No.2 in the said
Misc. Case (Annexure No.18 to the writ petition) and
to allow the said Misc. Case in its entirety.
(ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent to grant all
consequential benefits to the petitioner.
(iii) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction
which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case.
(iv) To award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the
petitioner."
2. In fact, the relief, which has been sought, was as
against the judgment/award, which was rendered by the Labour
Court, in the Misc. Proceedings, which were held under Section
33(C)(2), which was decided by way of Case No.19 of 2011, and
as a consequence thereto, by the impugned judgment/award, the
Labour Court, had held that the petitioner's claim for payment of
wages for the period from 23.06.1998 to 09.06.2000, he would
not be entitled to be paid, to him, for the reasons, which has been
assigned therein in the award/order to the effect that he has not
worked or rendered any services, for the said period and also to
the effect that there already happens to be an Arbitrator's decision
also, which had, disentitled him for the salary for the said period,
as he has not worked for the said period and under the principles
of no work, no salary. The issue with regards to the entitlement of
the petitioner for the wages for the said period from 23.06.1998
to 09.06.2000 was put to challenge by him in a writ petition
before the Division Bench where the Division Bench too in its
judgment, which was rendered on 17.12.2005 had made the
following observations:-
"So far as the payment of arrear of salary for the period
from 23.06.1998 to 09.06.2000 is concerned, the Arbitrator
had held that the petitioner did not work during that period
hence he is not entitled for salary for the said period for the
reason that the petitioner had not worked during that period
initially on the principle of no work no pay basis. We do
not find any fault in the impugned order passed by the
Arbitrator so far as the payment of salary regarding to this
period is concerned.
(J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (P.C. Verma, J.)
Dated: 17.12.2005"
3. Once the aspect of entitlement of the petitioner for
the wages for the said period, has been affirmed by the Division
Bench vide its judgment dated 17.12.2005, consequently,
resulting into an affirmation of the decision of the Arbitrator
dated 11.07.2000, the subsequent invocation of the proceedings
by invoking the provisions contained under Section 33(C)(2) of
Industrial Disputes Act, under the pretext that there had been a
later modification of the order of punishment, would have a
bearing on his entitlement for the salary for the said period too is
not conducive and logical too, and hence is not acceptable by this
Court, for the reason being that the subsequent modification of
the order of punishment, cannot be read as to be entitling the
petitioner to get the salary for the said period of 23.06.1998 to
09.06.2000, which otherwise stood affirmed and finally decided
by the Division Bench, against him holding that the petitioner is
not entitled for the wages for the aforesaid period. Particularly
when the said judgment, of the Division Bench has attained
finality, as not challenged by the petitioner further, before
superior court. Subsequent modifications of punishment order on
an administrative side by the authorities, will not override the
effect of a judicial verdict.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the reasons, which has been
given by the learned Labour Court, that in accordance with the
judgment of the Division Bench, since the issue has been closed,
the inference drawn by the learned Labour Court by the
impugned judgment, of 07.05.2016, as had been recorded in the
reasons, which has been given therein (page 52 of the writ
petition) based on the decision of the Arbitration dated
11.07.2000. Since the aspect has already been decided by the
Division Bench, it could not have been reagitated by the
petitioner before the Labour Court by invoking the provisions
contained under Section 33(C)(2), because it was not an admitted
claim which would be falling to be payable within the ambit of
Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to be
granted by the Labour Court. Consequently, I do not find any
merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
26.02.2021
Arti/
