Disposed

Teshlal Prajapati v. Presiding Officer Labour Court and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jul 2014WP/279/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of orders rejecting execution of a labour court award. Parties reached a settlement where the respondent school agreed to pay arrears and grant current salary equivalent to the petitioner’s counterpart.

What did the court decide?

Respondent School to pay Net Rs. 12,10,441/- to the petitioner and ensure payment of current salary from July onwards.

Teshlal Prajapati Vs Presiding Officer… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

zk axmk ,

¶2

IN H!GH §OURT^QFJUDICATURE I AT BILASPUR C.G.

¶3

WEE73HJ200£

¶4

PETETWNER

¶5

TE$HL§§L PRAJiXPATi Sfe $HR! SHNRATAN^PRAJAPET! $TREET No.4 SHANKGAR,W P . QVAISH&LI^NAGR, A m.$T BURG (^C.G.)

¶6

VERSU$

¶7

RESPONDENT...

¶8

PRESiEiNG^GFFICER L BOUR COURT UE‘wER LDACT §URG.

¶9

DEPUTY^LABQUR COMMISSIONER^CUM GOMPTENTE^AUTHORITY UNQER i D AC? KMLASH^PURI ,^RNPUR

¶10

. iJElLH Puauc SCHOLO THRQuGH: Principal cum^Secretary MARonA-s ECTOR,P05T BH!LI$T uURG (cm @.D

¶11

€ ‘

¶12

WRIT FE'ETHOR^{IHWERARTICLEZZwYOFTHEjOEJSTiTiNiONOF}

¶13

CE QF Au APPRQPRIATE^wmr '^m zHE^uATuRE gym^Fag“IS$UAN i R b$ AH N OTEWRIT E R .7 maecwew As^{MyLoansMMDEEM} HT :

¶14

\H^é

¶15

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RII ASPIIR SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA .I

¶16

W.P. No. 279 of 2002

¶17

PETITIONER Teshlal Prajapati

¶18

Versus

¶19

RESPONDENTS Presiding Officer and others

¶20

Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for the petitioner along with the petitioner Shrl Rajeev Shrivastava and Shri Malay Shrivastava counsel for the respondent No 3 With Shri Prashant Vashisth Princ1pal and Shri Anand Tripathi Junior Accountant

¶21

ORAL ORDER - (14.07.2014)

¶22

¶23

Bereft of unnecessary details, the bare minimum admitted facts are that pursuant to an order passed by Labour Court, Durg on 25/09/1997/award dated 04/11/1997 the petitioner^was reinstated in the services as the writ petition‘and^SLP filed by the management before the Supreme Court were dismissed. 2. In this writ petition petitioner^has prayed^for quashment^oftheorders Annexure P/1 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Govt. of Chhattisgarh and Annexure P/2 passed by the Labour Court Durg, whereby the petitioner’s prayer for execution of the award and payment ofiall benefits has been rejected. He has also prayed for grant of 50% backwages along with all future benefits and interest @ 18%. 3. For last three dates of hearing this Court has been persuading the parties^toexplorethe possibility^offinding a solution so that the petitioner, who is in litigation since last more than 20 years is able to reap the fruits of litigation. As a good gesture the respondent-School has come forward with a proposal^thatthe petitioner^shallbe paid^{asumofRs.13,87,710/—which} is the amount found admissible to the petitioner on the basis of the salary paid to

¶24

the petitioner’s counterpart Mrs. Anjamma. It is not disputed by the petitioner that Mrs. Anjamma was her counterpart.

¶25

Shri Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate appearing along with the petitioner,^{wouldsubmitthatthe} petitioner^acceptsthe proposal^and is ready to receive Rs.13,87,710/(minus the CPF and wages already received on account of wage revision) towards full and final settlement of his entire dues against the respondent-School which is arising out of the award passed by w'k^’ the Labour Court in order to put an end to the litigation. However, Shri Agrawal, would submit that petitioner should be paid current salary at’rpar with Mrs. Anjamma. Since. the calculation regarding payment of Rs.13,87,7‘lO/— has been made on the basis of the wages/salary paid to Mrs. Anjamma in the pay band known as PB-1 Rs.5200—20200+1900, the respondent-School should have no difficulty in making payment of current salary to the petitioner in the Same manner.

¶26

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:-

¶27

As full and final settlement towards payment of all arrears and to put an end to the decade old litigation, the respondent-School shall pay Rs.13,87,710/— to the petitioner, minus CPF amount of Rs.1,66,272.00 and the arrears which the petitioner^has already received by way of wages revision amounting to Rs.10,997.00. Thus, the net payable amount to the petitionerwould be Rs.12,10,441/-

¶28

Petitioner shall be paid current salary from the month of July to be paid in August and future salary in the scale of PB-1 Rs.5200-20200+1900 asis paid to the petitioner’s counterpart Mrs. Anjamma.

¶29

This Court appreciates the reconcilery attitude of learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate, who has appeared for respondent No.3 as also the petitioner and the officers representing the respondent No.3.

¶30

SdlPrashant Kumar Mishra Judge

Teshlal Prajapati v. Presiding Officer Labour Court and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teshlal Prajapati v. Presiding Officer Labour Court and Ors.

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

Girja Shanker Mahalwar Vs State Govt.of C.G. and Others

Dr. Arunima Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Surendra Kumar Soni and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satyawat Mahapatra and Ors. Vs the State of M.P. and Ors.

Alam Das Koshley and Ors. Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Dr. U.G. Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another