Nagar, Bharatpur v. The Bharatpur Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Bharatpur

: Mr.Prahlad Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr.Ram Kumar Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 06/02/2025

1. By way of filing of this petition, the following prayer has been prayed:- "It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this writ petition; and, (i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent Bank may be directed to pay to the petitioner full amount of bank wages of Rs. 8,87,109.30; (ii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner; (iii) costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner. "

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "workman") is working on a clerical post of Branch Manager, his services were terminated by the respondents vide order dated 24.02.1982, by which an [2025:RJ-JP:5314] (2 of 5) [CW-6511/2007] industrial dispute was raised before the Labour Court, by way of filing a claim petition. Counsel submits that the said claim petition was allowed vide award dated 05.06.1995 and his termination was held to be invalid and accordingly, a direction was issued to the respondents to reinstate the workman back in service with continuity and further a direction was issued to grant him full back wages.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid award was assailed by the respondents before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2252/1996. Counsel submits that the said petition submitted by the petitioner was disposed of with directions to the respondents to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the legal representatives of the workman as the workman has expired during pendency of the proceedings. Counsel submits that there was no basis for calculating the back wages in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Counsel submits that only on the basis of oral information furnished by the respondents, his pay scale of Rs.130/- per month was taken into account and accordingly, vide order dated 07.02.2001 was passed by this Court.

4. Counsel submits that after passing of the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached the respondent-bank for getting details of the salary and other allowances of the deceased-workman. Counsel submits that the respondents have issued certificate dated 14.08.2002 which indicates that the Basic Salary of the petitioner was Rs.125/-, Dearness Allowance was Rs.250/-, Medical Allowance was Rs.75/- and the House Rent was Rs.150/-. Counsel submits that in all the workman was getting a subsistence [2025:RJ-JP:5314] (3 of 5) [CW-6511/2007] allowance of Rs.475/-, hence, under these circumstances, the total back wages of the petitioner comes around Rs.8,87,109.30/-, therefore appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to grant the aforesaid back wages to the petitioner who is the legal representatives of the deceased-workman.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petition has been submitted by the wife of the deceased- workman, while the other legal representatives of the deceased- workman have not been impleaded in the array of cause title of this petition. Counsel submits that even otherwise the subsistence allowance of the deceased-workman are disputed which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Counsel submits that if at all the petitioner or the legal representatives of the deceased-workman are seeking additional back wages, then they are supposed to approach the competent Court of law, by way of filing appropriate application, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

7. This fact is not in dispute that the services of the deceased- workman were terminated by the respondents vide order dated

24.02.1982. This fact is also not in dispute that the aforesaid termination order was quashed by the Labour Court vide award dated 05.06.1995 with directions to the respondents to reinstate him back in service with continuity and further direction was issued to make the payment of full back wages. [2025:RJ-JP:5314] (4 of 5) [CW-6511/2007]

8. The aforesaid order passed by the Labour Court was assailed by the respondents before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2252/1996 and the said petition was decided by this Court vide order dated 07.02.2001 with the following observations and directions as follow:- "Unfortunately, the respondent-workman is not alive to enjoy the fruits of the award and, therefore, his legal representatives can only have the benefit of the backwages already awarded in his favour by the Labour Court. The respondent- workman had been functioning merely at a pay scale of Rs.130/- per month so the entire consequential burden of backwages on the management would not be more than a lakh of rupees and that cannot be said to be exorbitant. This writ petition thus do not justify interference with the impugned award of the Labour Court. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed."

9. It appears that the respondents have complied with the order passed by this Court by making payment of sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the legal representatives of the deceased- workman. However, while the workman's wages was Rs.475/-, the payable of sum of Rs.325/-, a figure that has been disputed by the respondent-bank. Notably, this document has not been disputed by the respondent-bank in their reply.

10. Whether the deceased-workman was getting Rs.130/- per month or Rs.325/- or not, is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under its writ jurisdiction contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The petitioner or the legal representatives of the deceased-workman are not remediless, as they can avail the appropriate remedy by [2025:RJ-JP:5314] (5 of 5) [CW-6511/2007] way of filing application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act of 1947"). In case, any application is submitted by them before the jurisdictional Labour Court within a period of one month from today, it is expected from the concerned Labour Court to decide the application strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months thereafter, after affording opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties and pass appropriate orders without being influenced by the order dated

07.02.2001 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2252/1996.

12. Stay application and all application(s), pending if any, also stand disposed of. Aayush Sharma/52 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J