Dismissed

Union of India Thru the General Manager N.R. Baroda House v. Late Smt. Shakuradied Thru Auth. Representative and Others

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2024WRIC/1002361/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Court dismissed a petition challenging an order directing payment of back wages awarded to casual labourers under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court upheld the recovery direction but modified it to ensure the deceased worker's legal heirs receive the funds.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; directions issued to pay awarded amount to legal heir Jamal Ahmad within six weeks.

Union of India Thru the General Manager… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:10838

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1002361 of 2013

¶4

Petitioner :- Union Of India Thru The General Manager N.R. Baroda House Respondent :- Late Smt. Shakura died Thru Auth. Representative And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Shekhar Sinha,Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D K Srivastava

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶8

By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.03.2013, passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow thereby allowing the application preferred by the respondent – workman and directed the petitioner to release the awarded amount in her favour in exercise of power under Section 33(c)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1947" ).

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that father of respondent no. 1 i.e. late Faiku Ali was casual labour employed by the petitioner under the Permanent Way Inspector, Nihalganj, Sultanpur on workcharge basis and on completion of the project his services automatically stood terminated. It is submitted that services of other casual labourers were terminated after giving notices or salary in lieu of notice, but the same was not applied in the case of respondent-workman. It is stated that several gangmen including the respondent-workman had moved an industrial dispute before the Central Industrial Tribunal and the matter was referred to the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur for adjudication for the following dispute :-

¶10

"Whether action of Management of Northern Railway in relation to Divisional Railway Manager Lucknow in not absorbing and terminating the services of S/Shri 1. Abad Ali, 2. Ram Lakhan, 3. Jag Prasad, 4. Kanhaiya Lal, 5. Phikoo Ali and 6. Ram Jiyawan Gangmen from 14.08.81 is justified, if not, to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled?"

¶11

It was demonstrated by the workmen that they had worked

¶12

for 240 days in the calendar year preceding their termination, but the petitioner had not prepared any record in this regard nor same was submitted before the Tribunal. Despite repeated notices, the petitioner did not file any written statement opposing the claim of the workmen and consequently the workmen were able to demonstrate that there is violation of Section 25(N) of the Act, 1947 and consequently by means of award dated 31.10.1985, passed by the Tribunal the petitioner was directed to pay to each workmen a sum of Rs.45954/- as back wages.

¶13

It is stated that the petitioner had filed writ petition being Writ Petition No. 10437 of 1989, which according to learned counsel for the petitioner is pending and no interim order has been passed therein. It has further been stated that the said writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 12.10.2004 and has not been restored till date. The award dated 31.10.1985 remain uncomplied by the petitioner and the workman filed an application under Section 33(C) (I) of the Act, 1947 before the Tribunal seeking a direction for recovery of outstanding amount from the petitioner.

¶14

The petitioner appeared and filed their objections, which were dismissed by the Tribunal and an amount of Rs.45945/was computed to be paid from 16.08.1981 to 31.12.1986. In the present writ petition the order dated 08.03.2013, has been assailed wherein orders have been passed for recovery of the said amount from the petitioner.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as perused the record.

¶16

From the undisputed facts of the present case it is evident that reference was answered in favour of the workmen by means of award dated 31.08.1985. There is no dispute that the said award remained uncomplied and the awarded amount was not paid to the workmen. It also could not be demonstrated that there was any interim order staying the said award and consequently, the workman having no other option, had filed application under Section 33(C)(I) of the Act, 1947. The said application was allowed. No arguments have been advanced on behalf of the petitioner which may persuade us to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the said recovery.

¶17

It has been further submitted that during pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, Phaiku Ali had died and substituted by his wife Smt. Shakura was impleaded, who also died and her son Jamal Ahmad has been substituted in her place. Only because of the aforesaid demise, this Court is of the considered view that order dated 08.03.2013 may be modified

¶18

and the amount payable to Phaiku Ali be paid to his legal heirs namely Jamal Ahmad after due verification.

¶19

Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition and is dismissed.

¶20

The Regional Labour Commissioner, Central, Lucknow is directed to forthwith comply with the order dated 08.03.2013 in terms of the directions passed by this Court within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Regional Labour Commissioner, Central, Lucknow forthwith.

¶21

Once it is noticed that there has not been any interference in the award, then there is no reason for this Court to interfere in the consequential recovery proceedings initiated by the workman under Section 33-C(I) of the Act, 1947.

¶22

Order Date :- 16.1.2024 A. Verma

¶23

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Union of India Thru the General Manager N.R. Baroda House v. Late Smt. Shakuradied Thru Auth. Representative and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India Thru the General Manager N.R. Baroda House v. Late Smt. Shakuradied Thru Auth. Representative and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Bhusan Dubey Vs State of U.P.through Secy.Labour Deptt.Civil Sectt.and Others

Anand Bansal Vs Additional District Judge/Special Judge E.C.Act. and Others

Radheyshyam Dubey and Ors. Vs Sita Ram and Ors.

M/S Arora Marka Int Bhattha Risiya Mor Post Risiya Vs Addl. Distt. Judge Faizabad and Appellate Authority and Ors.

Manauwar Vs Deputy Commissioner Food Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and Another

Anurag Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Panchayati Raj, Lucknow and Others