This writ petition challenged the denial of leave encashment benefits and the refusal to refer an industrial dispute arising from an individual worker. The Court addressed the applicability of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act and the absence of specific Rules for the petitioner's leave encashment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4356/2004
Narain Lal Gupta
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : 13/01/2014 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI
Mr. Rajendra Vaish, for petitioner Mr. S.D. Khaspuria, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for State Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma, for respondent/s
By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 27.02.2004 passed by the respondents for denial of reference of dispute raised before the conciliation officer. The dispute was for denial of benefits of leave encashment on retirement.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondents denied benefits of gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioner.
So far as claim of gratuity is concerned, it was raised and granted by the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The benefit of leave encashment was claimed by raising a dispute before the conciliation officer. It was not settled between the parties, thus failure report was sent to the appropriate government. The appropriate government vide its
2
impugned order dated 27.02.2004 refused to refer the dispute as it was raised by the individual thus not covered by Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short “the Act” ). The dispute raised by the petitioner falls in the definition “Industrial Dispute” thus denial of reference is bad. The petitioner is otherwise entitled to the benefits of leave encashment as the respondent Co-operative Society has already adopted rules applicable to State government employees. In view of the above, even if order of refusal of reference is not interfered, the respondents be directed to grant benefits of leave encashment to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for respondents submits that nonreference of the dispute is for the reason that it was raised by the individual, though not permissible. Thus refusal of reference was in reference to the provisions of law.
So far as benefits of leave encashment claimed by the petitioner is concerned, it is not admissible in absence of any rule/regulations and even adoption of any of the Rules prevalent in State of Rajasthan. The Registrar, Co-operative Society issued specific direction in the year 1993 not to extend benefits of leave encashment in absence of provision.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record.
3
The first issue is in reference to the impugned order dated 27.02.2004 for denial of reference. For that purpose, Section 2A of the Act, 1947 is quoted hereunder for ready reference:
“2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.- Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches, or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.”
As per aforesaid provision, a dispute can be raised by the individual when it is a case of discharge or dismissal. The individual cannot raise a dispute for any other issue other than covered by Section 2A of the Act. A dispute other than for discharge or dismissal, etc. can be raised through union/association or by group of employees but not by an individual. The denial of reference in the light of the aforesaid cannot be said to be illegal thus I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.
So far as denial of benefits of leave encashment is concerned, the petitioner has failed to show any rule/regulations or any order for adoption of the rules prevalent
4
in State of Rajasthan for their employees. In absence of it and keeping in mind the specific pleading and the order passed by the Registrar in the year 1993, the denial of benefits of leave encashment cannot be said to be illegal. The benefits can be claimed when it is provided under the Rules. In view of the above, even denial of leave encashment to the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal.
The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit hence dismissed.
[M.N.BHANDARI], J.
FRBOHRA/4356CWP2004.doc
Certificate:
“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.”
FATEH RAJ BOHRA, SR.P.A.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a dispute regarding leave encashment by an individual worker falls within the scope of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to leave encashment benefits adopted under State government rules absent specific regulation or Registrar order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Narain Lal Gupta
State of Rajasthan
M.N. Bhandari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
