Allowed

U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Keshav Chandra Nigam and Another

Allahabad HC27 May 2022WRIC/54222/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appellate court allowed the U.P.S.R.T.C.'s petition setting aside a Labour Court award that granted a conductor retirement at 60 years. Following a higher court decision limiting the 60-year rule to employees after July 26, 2012, the court quashed the award but protected amount already paid.

What did the court decide?

The award dated 31.5.2000 is set aside. Amounts paid are not to be recovered. Interim deposit returned with interest.

U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Keshav Chandra Nigam and… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 54222 of 2000

¶3

Petitioner :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Respondent :- Keshav Chandra Nigam And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- R.K.Ojha,Sameer Sharma,Sunil Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Piyush Agrawal,V K Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

List revised. None appears for respondent workman.

¶6

Heard Shri Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

Present writ petition has been filed by U.P.S.R.T.C. against the award dated 31.5.2000 passed by the Labour Court, Kanpur, in Adjudication Case No. 118 of 1999.

¶8

The above adjudication case had arisen from the following reference made, vide order dated 19.5.1999:

¶9

"Kya Sewayojakon Dwara Shramik Shri Keshav Chandra Nigam Putra Swargiya Shri Gore Lal Parichalak Ko 60 Varsh Ki Sewa Nivitri Aayu Ke Poorn Karne Se Pehle Hi 58 Varsh Ki Hi Aayu Mei Hi Aadesh Dinaank 31.10.95 Dwara Apranh Ke Pashchaat Karya Se Prithak Kar Dinaank 1.11.95 Se Savayein Samampt Kia Jaana Uchit Evam Vaidhanik Hai? Yadi Nahin Toh Sambhandhit Shramik Kya Hitlaabh/Chatipoorti Paane Ka Adhikari Hai? Kis Tithi Evam Anya Kis Vivaran Ke Saath?"

¶10

The Labour Court had returned an award in favour of the respondent workman declaring his age of retirement would have been 60 years. Undisputedly, the respondent workman had worked on the post of Conductor in the petitioner's establishment. Undisputedly, his original date of superannuation was 1.11.1995.

¶11

In such facts, it has been submitted, the issue involved is squarely covered by a division bench of this Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Naresh Kumar Srivastava

¶12

& Ors., 2018 (Suppl) ADJ 600 . By the aforesaid decision, the division bench of this Court has reached the finding that the retirement age of 60 years would be applicable w.e.f. 26.7.2012 i.e. to only such employees/conductors, who attained the age of superannuation on or after that date. Clearly, the petitioner is ineligible to extension of the age of retirement, to 60 years.

¶13

In view of the above, the impugned award dated 31.5.2000 is set aside. However, if any amount has been paid to the respondent workman over and above his entitlement, the same may not be recovered from him, now.

¶14

Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed . No order as to costs.

¶15

The amount deposited under the interim order dated 4.1.2001 passed by this Court, may be returned to the petitioner together with accrued interest, if any.

¶16

Order Date :- 27.5.2022 Prakhar

¶17

Digitally signed by PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.05.30 12:45:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Keshav Chandra Nigam and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Keshav Chandra Nigam and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Azhar Hasan Vs District Judge and Others

Nordic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Gracure Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Har Chand Vs Ist A.D.J. and Others

Medical Superintendent Christian Hospital and Another Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court and Another

Prabhu Prasad Vs Baroda Up Bank

State of U.P. and Others Vs Nanak Chand and Others