High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
U.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Mumtaz & Another - WRIT - C No. 22763 of 2001  RD-AH 11314 (5 July 2007)
Judgment Reserved on 11.4.2007
Judgment Delivered on 05.7.2007
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22762 of 2001
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Jhansi Versus Sharafat Ali and another.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22763 of 2001
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Jhansi Versus Mumtaz and another.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22764of 2001
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Jhansi Versus R.C.Vatsalya and another.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22766 of 2001
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Jhansi Versus Jaheer Khan and another.
Hon'ble S.U.Khan J
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the merits of all the writ petitions.
First Writ Petition
First writ petition is directed against order dated 18.5.2001 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner ,Jhansi in Misc. Case No. 30 of 2000 through which recovery certificate was issued for recovery of an amount of Rs. 127829/- from petitioner employer for payment to its workman respondent No.1. Earlier the services of the workman were terminated by the petitioner employer. Workman raised industrial dispute which was registered as Adjudication case No. 12 of 1992. Presiding officer Labour Court, Kanpur gave the award on 28.9.1993 in favour of workman respondent No.1, through which the termination order was set aside and the workman was directed to be reinstated with back wages from the date of reference i.e 31.12.1991. The back wages awarded by the Labour Court were recovered by the workman through application under section 6-H of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act amounting to about Rs.69000/- The workman joined the duty on 30.4.1994. Thereafter, the workman filed another application under section 6-H of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act claiming further amount of about Rs. 121000/- in pursuance of the same award dated 28.9.1993. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 30 of 2000. Since the date of his joining, the workman, respondent No.1 was getting regular salary. His case was that he was being constantly under paid.
The main dispute before the Labour Court was regarding pay scale and revised pay scale. This is evident from para 14, 17 and 19 of the counter affidavit.
It appears that consequent upon recommendations of Vth Pay commission pay scale was to be revised and the dispute was regarding non-payment of salary in the revised pay scale. There was absolutely no allegation by the workman that he was being paid less than his counter parts. As far as the award is concerned, it had fully been implemented. Subsequent disputes regarding pay scales are not covered by the award of reinstatement with full back wages. The award exhausted itself after reinstatement of the petitioner and payment of back wages in similar proceedings under section 6-H of U.P.I.D Act taken earlier.
Second Writ Petition
This writ petition is directed against order dated 16.5.2001 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jhansi in Misc. Case No. 20 of 2000. In this case also services of the workman who was working as driver with the petitioner employer were terminated. Thereafter, Industrial Dispute was raised in the form of Adjudication case No. 17 of 1993. The award was given on 25.5.1994 directing reinstatement. Reinstatement was accordingly done. The respondent No.1 filed application under section 6-H for recovery of an amount of Rs. 158000/- and odds. It was for the arrears of salary on the basis of difference of the amount payable under Vth Pay Commission, accepted by the Board of Director of Corporation and the salary which was actually paid for 3 years i.e from 1996 to 1998, Deputy Labour Commissioner held that under new pay scale respondent No.1 was entitled to receive claimed amount of Rs.1,58,000/- and odd. Accordingly, by the impugned order recovery certificate for the said amount was issued. In para 14 of counter affidavit it has clearly been stated that the dispute is in respect of revised pay scale as recommended by Vth Pay Commission. In this case also it was no where stated that respondent No.1 was getting less than the emoluments paid to his counter parts
Third Writ Petition
In this writ petition also services of respondent No.1 who was conductor with the petitioner were terminated. He raised industrial dispute in the form of Adjudication case No. 30 of 1991. Award was given in his favour and reinstatement was directed without back wages. Respondent No.1 was accordingly reinstated. Thereafter, respondent No.1 was also suspended for certain period and salary for the said period was deducted. Punishment of stoppage of two increments was also awarded. In this case also arrears of salary for the period from 1996 to 1998 were demanded on the basis of revised pay scale recommended by Vth Pay Commission. Deputy Labour Commissioner through order dated 18.5.2001 passed in Misc. Case No. 33 of 2000 directed for recovery of about Rs.199000/-
Fourth Writ petition
In this case also services of respondent No.1 were terminated. Thereafter, termination order was set-aside by the Labour Court in Adju0
dication Case No. 118 of 1993. Back wages from the date of reference i.e. May 1993 were awarded. Petitioner was reinstated and back wages were paid. Respondent No.1 has also raised the dispute regarding difference of salary in view of Vth Pay Commission for the period from 1996 to 1998. Deputy Labour Commissioner through order dated 16.5.2001 passed in Misc. Case No. 26 of 2000 directed recovery of amount of Rs. 142000/-
In all the four cases earlier awards had been complied with and reinstatements of respondent workmen were made, back wages were paid to those workmen in whose cases there was a direction to that effect. Disputes were raised in 2000; workers were getting salary for long time. There was no allegation that they were being paid less than the other similarly situate employees. The applications were mainly made for payment of revised pay scale in accordance with the Vth Pay Commission.
The Supreme Court in U.P.S.R.T.C Vs. Virendra Bhandari 2006 (111) FLR 393 has clearly held that under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which is equivalent to section 6 H of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act direction for payment in accordance with Vth Pay Commission can not be given.
Moreover, by the impugned orders Labour Court has decided the entitlement in detail. It is not the case of pure calculation. Moreover, delay was also fatal. Respondent No.1 in each writ petitions continued to receive salary without any protest for four or five years. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited the following two authorities of this court which supports his contention.
1.K.Z.P. Sahson Allahabad Vs. Additional Labour Commissioner 2005 (3) U.P.L.B.E.C 2878
2.National Textiles Corporation Vs. P.O. Labour Court 2006 (1) ALJ 421.
Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed. All the impugned orders are set-aside.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.