High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
U.P.S.E.B. Kanpur v. Satish Chandra Sudan & Another - WRIT - C No. 27557 of 1998  RD-AH 7720 (16 December 2005)
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.27557 OF 1998
U.P. State Electricity through Kanpur Electricity
Supply Administration, KESA House,
Civil Lines, Kanpur through its General Manager ....Petitioner
Satish Chandra Sudan , husband of Smt. Kamlesh
Sudan,(deceased employee) R/o 17/4 KESA Colony,
Kanpur. .. Respondents
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.
The present petition is directed against an award of the Labour Court dated 25.10.97 passed in adjudication case No.44 of 1997 by which, the Labour Court has given to respondent workman Smt. Kamlesh Sudan increments for the period 1.12.1982 to 1.3.1988.
Admittedly, the respondent workman was absent without leave during this period.
Having remained absent for six years, she came back to the petitioner and informed the petitioner that, in fact, she had been suffering from cancer. The petitioner Corporation, taking a kind view of the matter, set aside the termination made by the petitioner, for absence without leave and reinstated the petitioner on certain terms and conditions, which are quoted herein below. :-
(a) That she will be taken back in service with immediate effect subject to the condition that she will not be entitled to any wages for the period of her unauthorized absence. However, she will be paid wages from 1st March, 1981:
(b) The period of her absence as above shall be treated as special leave without pay:
(c) She will be given continuity of service exclusively for the purposes of pension and gratuity: and
(d) That on her resuming duty, she will be posted at the PBX Electricity House. However, she will not be posted on the PBX during the night hours.
Respondent workman accepted the terms and conditions and was permitted to continue till her death.
After serving rejoinder affidavit on 1.3.98, the respondent workman allowed a period of 8 years passed and, thereafter, sought a reference in the year 1996 stating that she was also entitled to her increments for the period 1.12.82 to 1.3.88.
The Labour Court has granted to the respondent workman relief sought for in the reference.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, which are not disputed by the respondent workman, I am of the opinion that the petitioner Corporation, in fact, has taken a very kind view of the matter and had restored the service of the petitioner on compassionate ground. The admitted position is that she had not even worked for a period of six years and even then, the petitioner Corporation gave her pensionary and other post retiral benefits, taking into account that period. It cannot be said that the respondent workman would, therefore, become entitled for increment and promotions during the period that she has not worked.
Regardless of the fact that she was suffering from cancer, the respondent workmen should have informed the petitioner Corporation about the illness but she does not do so and when the petitioner Corporation was kind enough to reinstate her in service, she sought to take unfair advantage to this, after a period of eight years. The respondent workman cannot be granted benefits by taking advantage of her own wrong.
The award of the Labour Court which is based on misplaced sympathy as erroneous, especially, in view of the fact that the respondent workman had accepted the terms and conditions of her reinstatement as quoted in the forgoing paragraph, is hereby set aside.
The writ petition is allowed but with no costs.
Dated : 16.12.05
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.