High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2162 of 2001 Petitioner :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Akbar Ali And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satya Prakash Pandey,Suresh Chandra Mishra,V.P. Pandey Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. 1. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri V.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent claimant. 2. Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 15.03.2000 passed by the Labour Court, Agra under Section 33-C(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). By that order, the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 96,206/- to the respondent workman by way of arrears of wages (Rs. 6,329/-), leave encashment (Rs. 16,567/-), bonus (Rs. 6,570/-) and overtime (Rs. 66,740/-). Under the interim order granted by this Court dated 18.01.2001, the entire disputed amount was directed to be deposited with the Labour Court. Of that 50% was required to be released in favour of respondent workman. 3. Learned Standing Counsel would submit, the order dated 15.03.2000 is based on a fraudulent award dated 10.09.1997 passed in Adjudication Case No. 1 of 1995. Second, it has been submitted, the petitioner was not offered opportunity to lead evidence to disprove the claim. Therefore, the matter may be remitted, to allow the State to lead proper evidence and establish that the respondent workman was neither a licensed driver who may have been engaged to drive a tanker nor he had worked in that capacity as may have entitled him to the relief granted by the Labour Court.
Legal Reasoning
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent workman would submit, the award of the Labour Court dated 10.09.1997 passed in Adjudication Case No. 1 of 1995 has long attained finality. It was never challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, it is too late in the day to contend, the aforesaid award is fraudulent. In any case, the ex parte award had arisen upon proper opportunity granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the same is not nonest. 5. Second, it has been submitted, the engagement of the respondent workman is not doubted. The status and nature of work performed by the respondent workman, has been doubted. Thus, according to the petitioner, the respondent workman was engaged as a cleaner but not a driver. Third, it has been submitted, the amount awarded is meagre. It has lost value, over time. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent workman further asserted, the respondent workman had a valid licence. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, it is not doubted that earlier dispute had arisen between the parties. Vide reference order dated 22.02.1995, the following dispute had been referred for adjudication to the Labour Court: "Kya sewayojkon dwara apne shramik Akbar Ali putra Sri Chand Khan ko karya ke anuroop pad naam va vetanman na dena uchit evam vaidhanik hai ? Yadi nahi, to sambandhit shramik kya labh/kshatipurti (relief) paane ka adhikari hai ?" 8. On that, the Labour Court vide its award dated 10.09.1997 concluded, the respondent workman be given post designation "Generator and Bituman Tanker Operator" and was entitled to regular wages applicable to that post. Further, relief was granted to regularize the respondent workman on that post w.e.f. October 1988. 9. It is undisputed between the parties that the aforesaid award has attained finality inasmuch as the State petitioner did not challenge the same. 10. It is also not the case of the petitioner that it did not pay the wages to the respondent workman at the rate applicable for the post "Generator and Bituman Tanker Operator" for the period post the award dated 10.09.1997. 11. Thus, the petitioner did not challenge the award of the Labour Court dated 10.09.1997 passed in Adjudication Case No. 1 of 1995 but it also appears, it gave effect to the same, according to its own wisdom and to the extent it was found implementable. 12. It is in the above context that the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act came to be filed by the respondent workman, claiming certain arrears of wages for the period 01.01.1996 to February 1997 and other benefits, as have been noted above, with respect to which the relief has been granted. 13. The submission being advanced by learned Standing Counsel that the respondent workman did not have a driving licence is neither here nor there. It is not the specific case of the petitioner State that the respondent workman was never engaged as a driver. Inasmuch as there is no evidence to establish that no such work taken from the respondent workman, the driving licence would be secondary. In any case, the respondent workman contends, it had always a valid licence as has been annexed to the counter affidavit. 14. In the context of the claim of money made by the respondent under a final award of the Labour Court, primacy may be given to work performed and not to the existence or otherwise of the driving licence. 15. Plainly, once it cannot be doubted, the respondent workman had performed the work as "Generator and Bituman Tanker Operator", it would largely be extraneous to the dispute whether he had a valid driving licence. 16. The proceedings that were conducted, were upon due notice to the petitioner. Therefore, there survives no occasion to grant indulgence to the State petitioner to lead any other or further evidence. Then, the disputed amount is too meagre. At present, not more than Rs. 50,000/- is outstanding as the balance amount has already been paid over to the respondent workman. 17. For the reasons noted above and also on account of the meagre amount remain, no interference is warranted. 18. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Let the balance amount deposited by the petitioner with the Labour Court in terms of the interim order passed in the writ petition be released in favour of the respondent workman together with interest, if any, that may have accrued on such deposit. 19. It is made clear, if the amount deposited has not earned any interest, the petitioner would not be saddled with any further liability, on that count. Order Date :- 27.5.2022 Abhilash Digitally signed by ABHILASH SINGH Date: 2022.05.27 18:40:20 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad