Dismissed

U.P.S.R.T.C Now U.A Transport Corp. v. Jagdish Chandra and Anr.

Uttarakhand HC6 Jul 2006WPMS/844/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand examined writ petitions seeking to quash the Labour Court's order allowing claims for leave encashment arrears. The court stayed the quashing order, directing the petitioner to deposit half the claimed amount and pay the balance in two installments pending the appeal outcome.

What did the court decide?

Order quashed in part; Petitioner directed to deposit half the amount and pay the balance in two installments.

U.P.S.R.T.C Now U.A Transport Corp. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.844 (MS) OF 2006

¶3

U.P.S.R.T.C. (now know as)

¶4

Uttaranchal Transport Corporation,

¶5

Through its Regional Manager, Kumaon Region,

¶6

Nainital, District Nainital. …………Petitioner.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Jagdish Chandra, S/o late Sri Kishan Ram, R/o Village Talla Gaithia, Post Gaitia Sanitarium, District Nainital.

¶9

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Haldwani Nainital. ……………..Respondents. &

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.845 (MS) OF 2006

¶11

U.P.S.R.T.C. (now know as)

¶12

Uttaranchal Transport Corporation,

¶13

Through its Regional Manager, Kumaon Region,

¶14

Nainital, District Nainital. …………Petitioner.

¶15

Versus

¶16

Keshav Dutt Kandpal, S/o Bhawani Dutt Kandpal, R/o Indira Nagar 11, P.O. Lal Kuan, Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital.

¶17

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Haldwani Nainital. ……………..Respondents.

¶18

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO.846 (MS) OF 2006

¶20

U.P.S.R.T.C. (now know as)

¶21

Uttaranchal Transport Corporation,

¶22

Through its Regional Manager, Kumaon Region,

¶23

Nainital, District Nainital. …………Petitioner.

¶24

Versus

¶25

Chandra Shekhar Gunwant, S/o late Bhola Datt Gunwant, R/o Gunwant Niketan, Subhash Nagar, P.O. Haldwani, District Nainital.

¶26

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Haldwani Nainital. ……………..Respondents.

¶27

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO.847 (MS) OF 2006

¶29

U.P.S.R.T.C. (now know as)

¶30

Uttaranchal Transport Corporation,

¶31

Through its Regional Manager, Kumaon Region,

¶32

Nainital, District Nainital. …………Petitioner.

¶33

Versus

¶34

Basant Lal, S/o late Ram Lal, R/o Malla Byura, P.O. Kathgodam, Haldwani, District Nainital.

¶35

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Haldwani Nainital. ……………..Respondents. &

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO. 848 (MS) OF 2006

¶37

U.P.S.R.T.C. (now know as)

¶38

Uttaranchal Transport Corporation, Through its Regional Manager, Kumaon Region,

¶39

Nainital, District Nainital. …………Petitioner.

¶40

Versus

¶41

Kishan Singh, S/o late Bhagwat Singh, R/o Shish Mahal, Colonel Ward, P.O. Kathgodam, Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital.

¶42

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Haldwani Nainital. ……………..Respondents.

¶43

Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J.

¶44

Heard Sri A.N. Sharma and Sri C.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner and Standing counsel for the respondent no.2.

¶45

By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition).

¶46

Briefly stated, respondent/workman has filed a claim petition under Section 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haldwani claiming difference of leave encashment arrears arising out of recommendation of 5^th Pay Commission. The claim of the respondent/workman was opposed by the U.P.S.R.T.C. by filing a written statement.

¶47

The Labour Court on different dates allowed the claim of the respondent/workman. The aforesaid order passed by the labour Court was challenged before this Hon’ble Court in writ petitions. In writ petitions following directions were given:-

¶48

“Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that according to the direction of the government order dated 24^th February, 1999, the fixation of the salary of the employees of

¶49

the petitioner corporation has been determined by the petitioner corporation but the payment thereof since 01.01.1996 to 31.12.1998 has not been made so far, but as soon as the financial position of the petitioner corporation improves or it receives financial assistance from the State Government and direction regarding carving out the plan for the payment thereof, the same shall be made accordingly. The salary as revised according to the implementation of recommendation of the Vth Pay Commission is being paid to the employees of the petitioner corporation since 01.01.1999. In spite of the acute financial crisis the petitioner corporation is making payment according to a plan carved out vide its resolution No. 2553/99 and thereafter issued vide Head Quarters Circular No. 186 CENT/G/99/592 Nigam/97, dated 05.03.1999.

¶50

It has further been submitted that the Dehradun region of the petitioner corporation has already paid a sum of Rs. 2, 13, 86,675.00 to its employees.

¶51

Both the parties have agreed that in view of the above, they will consider to clear all the dues by passing the appropriate order for the payment with effect from 1^st January, 1996 as per Govt. Order dated 24.02.1999, which was adopted by the policy decision of the U.P.S.R.T.C.”

¶52

In pursuance of the aforesaid order, labour Court has considered the maintainability of the application under Section 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act in favour of the workman. However, in Misc. Case No. 142 of 2002, the Presiding Officer labour Court has passed the order to the following effect:-

¶53

“Jfed }kjk vius izkFkZuk i= esa vo’ks"k osru ,fj;j :0 29088@& vfTkZr vodk’k dk uxnhdj.k 28529@& rFkk vfrdky HkRRkk :0 75@& dqy :i;k 57692@&dh ekax dh xbZ gS ftlesa ls okn ds fopkjk/khu jgrs gq,

¶54

Jfed }kjk :0 4953@& izkIr gksuk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS] tcfd lsok;kstd lk{kh ds vuqlkj Jfed dk tuojh o Qjojh 99 dk ,fj;j Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk dgk x;k gS vkSj Hkqxrku jftLVj ewy :i ls U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k tk;sxk dgk x;k gS fdUrq og izLrqr ugh fd;k x;kA 'ks"k okn i= ds de 3]4]5]6]7 dk Hkqxrku gks tkuk dgk x;k gS tks Jfed dks Hkh Lohdkj gSA bl izdkj Jfed dks osru ,fj;j ds :i esa :0 28529@& RkFkk vfrdky HkRrs ds :Ik esa :0 75@& dqy :Ik;k 52839@&dh ekax lax.kuk gsrq Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA lsok;kstdksa dks ;g vf/kdkj gksxk fd ;fn muds }kjk lEcfU/kr Jfed dks ekg tuojh o Qjojh 99 dk ,fj;j :0 1868@& okLro esa Jfed dks Hkqxrku dj fn;k x;k gS] rks og mldk lek;kstu laxf.kr /kujkf’k dk Hkqxrku nks ekg ds vUnj djs] vU;Fkk Jfed vkns’k dh frfFk ls ns; /kujkf’k ij Hkfo"; esa 6 izfr’kr C;kt Hkh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA rn~uqlkj oknh dks ns;

¶55

/kujkf’k dh lax.kuk dh tkrh gSA”

¶56

Counsel for the petitioner has referred the judgment of Apex Court passed in Special Leave to Appeal No. 2229 of 2006, where the similar controversy arose and the following order was passed:-

¶57

“Delay condoned.

¶58

Issue notice.

¶59

There shall be interim stay.”

¶60

In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the Chairman Labour Court shall be compiled with by depositing half of the amount and the same shall be paid to the workman after the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer in two instalments on duration of two months. The rest of the half shall be subject to the final decision in Special Leave to Appeal.

¶61

The presiding Officer shall fix the date after the decision of the apex Court if the Government Order dated 24.02.1999 in respect of the liability to pay the amount from 01.01.1996

¶62

has been challenged in S.L.P. Failing which, liberty is given to the respondent to fix the instalment so as to enable the petitioner to pay the same.

¶63

Subject to the aforesaid, writ petitions are disposed of.

¶64

No order as to costs.

¶65

(Rajesh Tandon, J.)

¶66

06.07.2006 Rathour

U.P.S.R.T.C Now U.A Transport Corp. v. Jagdish Chandra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.P.S.R.T.C Now U.A Transport Corp. v. Jagdish Chandra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganga Parashad Vs State and Ors.

Bachi Ram Vs Addl. Dist. Education Officer and Ors.

Km Himani Pande Vs State and Anr.

Harpreet Singh and Anr. Vs Principal Naincy Convent and Ors.

U.P.S.R.T.C Known as Uttaranchal Transport Vs Keshav Datt Kandpal and Anr.

U.P.S.R.T.C Now U.A Transport Vs Chandra Shekhar Gunwant and Nar