Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Secretary Gandhi Eye Hospital Trust, Aligarh v. Presiding Officer, Labourcourt & Another - WRIT - C No. 8060 of 1998 [2006] RD-AH 6572 (24 March 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court no. 31

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8060 of 1998

Secretary, Gandhi Eye Hospital Trust, Aligarh


Presiding Officer and another


Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.  

Despite the order passed on 9.3.2006 that no further illness slip will be entertained, today the learned counsel for the petitioner has again filed illness slip, which I am not entertaining.

List is revised. No one appears to press this writ petition. Sri K.P. Agarwal learned counsel for the respondent workman is present.

As the writ petition is of the year 1998, I proceed to hear the same on merits.

This writ petition has been filed against an impugned award of the Labour Court dated 6.10.1997 passed in adjudication case no. 57 of 1992 by which the Labour Court reinstated the workman with full back wages.

Sri K.P. Agarwal learned counsel for the respondent workman informs the Court that the workman had retired in the year 1997.

The record of this case shows that by an interim order was passed on 20.5.1999 passed by this Court, the petitioner was directed to deposit wages of the respondent workman for the period from Oct., 1989 to 6.10.1997, within three months at the rate of the wages which respondent no. 2 was drawing at the time when his services were terminated. The amount, so deposited, was to be invested in a term deposit scheme with Nationalized bank and would remain in deposit till further orders. Thereafter an order was passed on 20.7.2001 by which one half of the amount deposited by the petitioner was to be paid to the respondent no.2 within a period of one month from that day. Learned counsel for the respondent workman informs the Court that this money had already been received by the respondent workman. He also informs the Court that there remains balance 40% of the amount in the bank.

However the award of the Labour does not contain any discussion with regard to the fact as to whether the workman was gainfully employed or not, during the period that he was out of employment. In absence of any finding being recorded in this behalf and in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Brassware   it would be appropriate that 50% of the back wages granted to the petitioner be paid to the workman.

The award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that only 50% of the back wages granted by the Labour Court shall be given to the workman. If any part of 50% of the back wages remains to be realized to the workman from the amount which lies in deposit, the same will be given to the workman immediately upon receipt of certified copy of this order. The amount may be calculated by the appropriate authority.

With these directions, the writ petition is partly allowed but there will be no order as to costs.

Dated  24.3.2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.