Disposed

State and Ors. v. Surendra Singh and Anr.

Uttarakhand HC21 Jul 2017WPMS/1067/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The State challenged an award reinstating a regularization-dispensed workman. The Court found the workman had been reinstated, rendering the petition largely infructuous. However, the Court directed the petitioner to comply with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by paying 50% backwages, and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Direct compliance with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by making the payment of 50% backwages as directed by the Labour Court. The writ petition is disposed of.

State and Ors. Vs Surendra Singh and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Writ Petition No. 1067 of 2005 (M/S)

¶3

State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Forest and others …...Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

Surendra Singh and another …… Respondents.

¶6

Present: Mr. P.C. Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶7

Dated: 21^st July, 2017

¶8

JUDGMENT

¶9

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

¶10

The writ petition has been preferred by the State, wherein, they have challenged the award dated 12^th July, 2004, by virtue of which, the order of dispensation of service dated 18^th December, 1997, the respondent No. 1, was set aside and he was directed to be reinstated with 50% backwages and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses.

¶11

The writ petition, on being entertained, has been pending consideration before this Court since 22^nd September, 2005. As a matter of fact, when the interim order was passed by this Court, a direction was issued that the petitioner would comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶12

“[17B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts - Where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the

¶13

¶14

workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such workman had been filed to that effect in such Court:

¶15

Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof, the court shall order that no wages shall be payable under this section for such period or part, as the case may be.]”

¶16

Meaning thereby, the reinstatement was suspended but the amount of backwages as awarded was supposed to be paid. This order continued and it was not modified even thereafter during the pendency of the writ petition.

¶17

While, the writ petition was pending, the respondent No. 1, has brought a fact on record by filing an application No. 3726 of 2013, wherein he has placed on record, an order dated 22^nd January, 2000, passed by the petitioner, making this Court aware of the fact that during the pendency of the writ petition, his service has been regularized and he has been granted an appointment with the Department on a temporary basis. Hence, he filed an application containing thereof that as a matter of fact no lis survives as against award dated 11^th March, 2005. The application as filed by respondent on 17/04/2013 was dismissed on 06/05/2013.

¶18

This order dated 06/05/2013 has found place in the ordersheet, the parties had accepted the fact of respondent No. 2 having been reinstated. But this Court did not pass any order rendering the petition infructuous as the issue of 50% of backwages was yet to be decided, thus, Court left it open for respondent to file fresh application.

¶19

The backdrop on which the services of the respondent No. 1 was dispensed with was while he was working as a

¶20

¶21

daily wager with the petitioner department, the production of lisa has gone down, but the fact remains that despite of the said fact, he continued in the services which fact has not been denied. Merely because the production of lisa has gone down could not have been a reason to dispense the services of an employee by the order dated 18^th December, 1997.

¶22

In these circumstances, since major part as intended by the award of reinstatement has been complied with and only part which remains to be adjudicated is with regard to the payment of 50% backwages, was protected by applying the provision of Section 17-B of the Act, when the writ petition was entertained. It would be deemed rather the petitioner must have made a payment of the backwages as directed by the Labour Court during the pendency of the present writ petition. If the petitioners have not complied with Section 17-B of the Act, they are directed to comply the same and make the payment of 50% backwages as directed by the Labour Court.

¶23

Hence, on account of subsequent developments, nothing is left to be adjudicated upon in the writ petition.

¶24

In the light of above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶25

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)

¶26

21.07.2017 Shiv

State and Ors. v. Surendra Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State and Ors. v. Surendra Singh and Anr.

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

Chaman Lal Vs D.J. Haridwar and Ors.

Bhaskar Guru Niranjan Singh and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Shyam Lal and Ors. Vs Sukhmaal Chand Jain and Ors.

Dharam Pal Vs District Deputy Director Of Consolidation and Ors.

Raghubir Singh and Ors. Vs A.C.R.C and Ors.

Narain Dutt Joshi Vs P.O.L.C. and Anr.