Allowed

Manager H R Next Retail India Ltd. and or v. Smt Megha Mishra

Rajasthan HC25 Jan 2023CW/7832/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the petitioner-employer to deposit a fresh sum into the Labour Court account after the cheque deposited earlier expired. The employee was permitted to withdraw the amount subject to an undertaking to refund it if the writ petition succeeds.

What did the court decide?

P petitioner directed to deposit the awarded amount within three weeks; authorized release of amount to respondent subject to refund undertaking.

Manager H R Next Retail India Ltd. and or… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7832/2017

¶3

Manager H R Next Retail India Ltd And Or

----Petitioner

Versus

Smt Megha Mishra

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Punit Singhvi For Respondent(s) : Mr.Kunal Rawat Mr.Rajaram

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶10

Order

¶11

25/01/2023

¶12

The matter comes up on miscellaneous application, filed on behalf of the respondent, for release of the amount deposited in the Labour Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court, on 26^th May, 2017 while issuing notices in the writ petition filed by the petitioner-employer, directed them to deposit the entire amount, determined by the Labour Court within a week.

¶14

Learned counsel submitted that however a condition was put by the court that the amount, so deposited, was not to be disbursed without prior permission of the Court.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner, in pursuance of the directions given by the Court, deposited a cheque No.848466 on 02^nd June, 2017.

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-7832/2017]

¶18

Learned counsel submitted that the respondent is a poor widow lady, who has not been reinstated back and she is in dire need of money, which is lying in the Labour Court.

¶19

Learned counsel further submitted that validity of the cheque, so deposited by the petitioner, has already expired on 02^nd September, 2017 and as such, this Court may be pleased to direct the petitioner-establishment to issue new cheque and to submit the same in the Labour Court and further, the amount, so deposited, may be ordered to be released in favour of the respondent.

¶20

Per contra , learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court, finding prima facie case in favour of the petitioners, has passed stay order.

¶21

Learned counsel further submitted that the issue of jurisdiction is also involved in the present writ petition as whether the appliation, filed by the respondent, was maintainable under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958.

¶22

Learned counsel further submitted that if the prayer sought by the respondent is granted, the entire writ petition itself will become infructuous.

¶23

Learned counsel further submitted that the amount, so awarded by the Labour Court, is only for a specific period, i.e., from June, 2010 to September, 2012 and for rest of the period, the respondent-employee may also claim the benefit of backwages after computation and as such, it could affect merits of the case, not only before this Court but before the Labour Court as well.

¶24

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CW-7832/2017]

¶27

This Court finds that the respondent has got an order in her favour, whereby an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, filed by her, was allowed on 21^st April, 2016 and further the petitioners had also complied with the directions, given by this Court for depositing the amount.

¶28

This Court finds that the cheque, so deposited by the petitioners, has lost its validity.

¶29

Accordingly, this Court directs that the petitioner would deposit the amount, as was directed by Labour Court vide order dated 21^st April, 2016 within a period of three weeks and the respondent-employee would be entitled for payment of such amount to be deposited by the petitioners and she will also give an undertaking before the Labour Court that in case, the writ petition of the petitioners will be allowed, she would be required to refund the entire amount.

¶30

This Court also makes it clear that payment to the respondent-employee, in pursuance of the Court’s order, will not affect merits of the case and the petitioners would be free to raise all the contentions to challenge the impugned order.

¶31

The application stands allowed in the above terms.

¶32

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶33

Preeti Asopa /11

Manager H R Next Retail India Ltd. and or v. Smt Megha Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manager H R Next Retail India Ltd. and or v. Smt Megha Mishra

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

Secretary Administrartion R R v P N L Vs Rashtriya Bijali Karmachari Union

Ramlal Verma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rajkumar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt. Komal Purohit Wife of Jugal Kishore Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/O Shyam Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Ishwar Dash Sharma S/O Sh. Bhagwan Dash Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan