Uttarakhand High Court
Transport Corporation And Others vs President on 7 April, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 983 of 2025 (M/S)
Assistant General Manager, Uttarakhand
Transport Corporation and Others ..........Petitioner
Vs.
President, Uttarakhand Roadways Karmachari
Sanyukt Parishad .....Respondent
Present :
Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this petition is made to the award
dated 26.07.2024, passed in Award No. 13 of 2020, Assistant
General Manager, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and Others
Vs. President, Uttarakhand Roadways Karamchari Sanyukt
Parishad, by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court,
Uttarakhand, Haldwani, District Nainital. By it, it was held that
the workman is entitled to get Third Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/- with
effect from 24.04.2016.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record.
3. A workman was appointed in the Uttar Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation, UPSRTC on 24.01.1989 as driver. After
creation of State of Uttarakhand, his services were absolved in the
Uttarakhand State Road Transport Corporation. On 29.09.1991, he
was suspended due to some alleged misconduct. On 17.07.1992, he
was terminated. The order terminating the services of the workman
was challenged before the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court,
Uttarakahnd, Haldwani, District Nainital. The Labour Court
reinstated the services of the workman on half wages. This order
was challenged before this Court. The award was modified to the
extent that the workman would not be entitled to the wages.
Thereafter, the workman was reinstated in the services, but while
assessing ACP, it was found that from 23.01.1991 to 19.05.2000,
his services were discontinued and it was not satisfactory. This
period was not, as such, calculated while calculating ACP. It was
not found correct by the Labour Court in the impugned order on
the ground that the reinstatement was done with the continuity of
the services of the workman. This order is impugned.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that from
23.01.1991 to 19.05.2000, the services of the workman were not
satisfactory. Therefore, this period may not be considered while
calculating the ACP of the workman.
5. This argument has less force for acceptance. The workman
was terminated on 29.09.1991, and finally he was dismissed from
services on 17.07.1992. He was reinstated, but the petitioner did
not count his services from 23.01.1991 to 19.05.2000, and also,
according to the petitioner, the services of the petitioner during that
period was unsatisfactory. It may be noted that the petitioner was
reinstated in the services by the Labour Court on half wages and
the Labour Court, in its award, noted that the workman is entitled
to be reinstated with continuity of services. This award was upheld
by the High Court to the extent that the services of the workman
during that period shall be deemed to be continued. Only the wages
part was modified. Therefore, for all practical purposes, it has to be
presumed that the workman was in service during the period, in
fact, he had not worked. This is what has been observed in the
impugned award. Therefore, the impugned order does not warrant
any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
6. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
07.04.2025
Ravi Bisht
