Dismissed

Chairman Assi Manager Andors v. Bhinwaram Yadav

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2019CW/10313/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging interest calculations under the Industrial Disputes Act, the High Court dismissed the petition. The court held that involuntary delay by the lower adjudicatory body justified the interest awarded, while stressing that the holding company must pay the retiree immediately.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay the calculated holiday dues plus 9% interest to the workman within two months; failure invites contempt proceedings.

Chairman Assi Manager Andors Vs Bhinwaram… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10313/2016

¶3

Chairman / Assistant Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur.

¶4

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Vaishali Nagar Depot, Jaipur.

¶5

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Vidhyadhar Nagar Depot, Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Bhinwaram Yadav s/o Shri Ramdev Yadav, R/o 104, Arya Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur (Ex-Conductor), Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Vidhyadhar Nagar Depot, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.S.L. Sharma. For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

04/12/2019

¶14

The petitioner by way of this writ petition challenges the order passed under Section 33 (c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act of 1947’) whereby the Labour Court-I, Jaipur has calculated the amount which is to be paid for 82 weekly holidays, 32 weekly rests for the year 19992002. The amount was to be paid to the concerned workman who retired wayback on 1.8.2010. In view thereof, the directions have been issued for paying 9% interest on the amount calculated.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no occasion to impose interest @ 9%.

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CW-10313/2016]

¶18

I have considered the submission. Merely because the petitioners have conceded for the claim as set up by the workman, no relief can be given to them for not making payment in time. Admittedly, the workman retired on 1.8.2010 and he had to approach the Labour Court by filing application under Section 33 (c) (2) of the Act of 1947, which remained pending for three years. Thus, the petitioners were able to withhold the amount with them which was payable to the concerned workman. Withholding of the amount has been found to be illegal and unjustified. This court is satisfied that withholding of the amount which was payable to the workman is without any reason. Accordingly, the interest directed to be paid by the Labour Court does not warrant any interference.

¶19

The writ petition is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶20

All pending applications shall also stand dismissed.

¶21

The amount shall be paid positively within a period of two months to the workman, failing which, he shall be free to initiate contempt proceedings against RSRTC.

¶22

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶23

Karan Bhutani/531/80

Chairman Assi Manager Andors v. Bhinwaram Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chairman Assi Manager Andors v. Bhinwaram Yadav

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

M/S Rajasthan Telephone Inds L Vs Nil

M/S Rajasthan Polysters Ltd. Vs

Jagdish Prasad Yadav S/O Shri Hanuman Sahai Yadav Vs Director

Rajneesh Ajmera and Ors. Vs University of Raj and Ors.

Pappu Lal Sawariya Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Om Prakash Sharma S/O Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma Vs University of Rajasthan