Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/916/2021 on 3 May, 2021
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
WPMS No.916 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Via Video Conferencing)
Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Standing Counsel for
the State of Uttarakhand.
The petitioner had earlier approached this
Court by filing a Writ Petition No.155 of 2013,
whereby they have given a challenge to the order
which was passed by the State Government under
Section 3 (b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act of
1947, whereby the relevant provisions, while
exercising its powers under Section 3 (b), the wages
which was payable to the workman was settled by
the State Government.
The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court
while passing a final judgment of 17.05.2019 had
disposed of the writ petition directing the
respondent i.e. the State Government to consider
the formation of Wage Board, which will look into
the aspect pertaining to the fixation of wages. The
relevant part of the judgment, as directed by the
learned Coordinate Bench of this Court on
17.05.2019 is quoted hereunder:-
"7. Two years have already passed since
these wages have been determined. There is a
serious challenge as to the wrong calculation
done by the State, which has to be looked
into. Without interfering with the impugned
order, the matter is sent back to the State
Government, who shall hear all the
concerned parties and pass an appropriate
order. Let a decision be taken within a period
of two months from the date of production of
a certified copy of this order. It is also
advisable for the State Government to
consider formation of a wage board, which
shall look into the aspect of wages, as that
will be in the interest of the State
Government as well as the workers."
The said judgment was put to challenge in a
special appeal being Special Appeal No.646 of
2019 Rai Bahadur Narayan Sugar Mill Company
Limited vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, which
too was decided by the Division Bench of this
Court by the judgment of 30.07.2019, whereby the
Division Bench has slightly modified the order of
the learned Single Judge, in the light of the
directions given in para 18 of the said judgment of
the Division Bench, which is quoted hereunder:-
"18. While we may not be understood to
have expressed any opinion on the merits of
the decision of the State Government in
fixing enhanced wages, suffice it to make it
clear that, after complying with the directions
issued by the learned Single Judge in the
order under appeal, if the State Government
is satisfied that the wages fixed by it, in terms
of the notification dated 21.01.2017, needs
modification, neither the order now passed
by us, nor the order under appeal, shall
disable them from issuing a notification
afresh within one month from the date on
which it takes a decision in compliance with
the order passed by the learned Single
Judge."
It is contended by the petitioner that in
compliance of directions and judgment of the
Division Bench, judgment of 30.07.2019 and rather
in compliance of the learned Single Judge judgment
dated 17.05.2019, the respondents have already
constituted the Wage Board on 19.06.2013, but till
date no decision, as such has been taken as on date
by the Wage Board.
On a consensus being arrived at between the
counsel for the parties to the writ petition, this writ
petition is being disposed of with a direction to the
Wage Board, as constituted on 19.06.2019, to take a
decision in the matter in the light of the direction
issued by the learned Coordinate Bench on
17.05.2019 and as modified by the Division Bench
vide its judgment dated 30.07.2019, as
expeditiously as possible but not later than three
months from the date of production of certified
copy of this judgment.
Subject to the above, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
03.05.2021
Arti
