U.P. State Road Transport Corporation through Regional v. Labour Court, Uttar Pradesh, Dehradun, district Dehradun
Case at a glance
- Bench
- P C VERMA
Provisions considered
Judgment
Sri B.D. Kandpal and Sri A.N. Aharma, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Sri M.C. Pant, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
04.10.2005. HON’BLE P.C. VERMA, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated
08.08.2001, passed by respondent no.1, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun in Misc. Case No.115 of 2001. Brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that a claim application was filed by respondent no.2 under section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act for payment of arrears of difference of salary, leave encashment and arrears of Dearness Allowances arose out of implementation of the recommendation of the 5th pay commission to the petitioner department. The learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence on record allowed the application of the respondent no.2 and ordered the petitioner to pay the amount which has been mentioned in the list against their names along with the cost of Rs. 200/- as litigation expenses to each applicant under section 33-C(2) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence on record. Before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner has accepted that recommendation of 5th pay commission is binding on the Corporation and according recommendation, the dues are payable to their employees. It was also accepted that the financial condition of the corporation is not good at present and as and when the financial condition will be improved, the dues shall be paid to the employees. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly ordered to pay the dues to the employee-workmen within one month. I do not find any force in the writ petition. The Labour Court has recorded the finding of fact, which does not call for any interference. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Dated: 04.10.2005. Negi. (P.C. Verma, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.