# (2013) 1 ILRA 137

- **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 137
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-01-16
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68340 of 2006
- **Bench:** Sibghat Ullah Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/2013-1-ilra-137-42466
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226-Labour
Court Award-direction of reinstatement
and to treat the long gap of absence
from duty as medical leave-reliance
placed upon some receipts of UPC
without application-even the medical
certificate obtained from private doctorheld-the receipts of UPC as well as such
medical
certificate
can
be
easily
procured by interested person-obsoletely
no explanation for long term period of
absence for 18 years-held-award not
sustainable-quashed.

Held: Para-7

U.P.C. is not believable at all in view of
above Supreme Court authorities. It is
quite clear that respondent No.1 was
working somewhere else. He could not
show that he was prevented by sufficient
cause from attending his duties for 18
years.
Case Law discussed:
1994 (4) SCC 445 (para-6); AIR 2000 SC 433

## Text

1 All] U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.V. Bhagwati Prasad Gupta and another
137

9. A conjoint reading of the above
provisions makes it clear that an appeal or an
application for setting aside the award made
by the Industry Facilitation Council can only
be entertained if the applicant deposits 75%
of the amount awarded. This condition of
deposit is in addition to the conditions or
procedure laid down under Section 34 of the
1996 Act.

10. Accordingly, the application of the
petitioner for setting aside the award cannot
be entertained unless 75% of the amount
awarded is deposited. The court below is,
therefore, not justified in permitting any
lesser amount to be deposited.

11. The writ petition is dismissed with
the direction to the court below to proceed
with the decision of the application only on
deposit of 75% of the decreed amount by the
petitioner.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68340 of 2006

U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Bhagwati Prasad Gupta And Another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arvind Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri Mahendra Kumar Mishra

Constitution of India, Article 226-Labour
Court Award-direction of reinstatement
and to treat the long gap of absence
from duty as medical leave-reliance
placed upon some receipts of UPC
without application-even the medical
certificate obtained from private doctorheld-the receipts of UPC as well as such
medical
certificate
can
be
easily
procured by interested person-obsoletely
no explanation for long term period of
absence for 18 years-held-award not
sustainable-quashed.

Held: Para-7

U.P.C. is not believable at all in view of
above Supreme Court authorities. It is
quite clear that respondent No.1 was
working somewhere else. He could not
show that he was prevented by sufficient
cause from attending his duties for 18
years.
Case Law discussed:
1994 (4) SCC 445 (para-6); AIR 2000 SC 433

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah
Khan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Mahendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel
for legal representatives of workman
respondent No.1.

2. This writ petition is directed
against award dated 20.09.2006 given by
Presiding Officer, Labour Court (III),
U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication Case No.102
of 1996. The matter which was referred to
the labour court was as to whether the
action of petitioner employer terminating
the services of its workman respondent
No.1 w.e.f. 24.09.1993 was just and valid
or not.

3. The workman himself admitted
that he was appointed in the year 1968,
however
since
03.02.1975,
he
was
suffering from mental disease hence he
could not appear to work for 18 years and
138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
after full recovery he appeared along with
medical
and
fitness
certificate
on
24.07.1993 but he was not taken back in
service. Labour Court has mentioned that
petitioner
filed
some
Under
Postal
Certificate (U.P.C.) receipts of 1975, 1976,
1977, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992. Labour
court has itself mentioned that plaintiff did
not file copy of any application which may
have been sent through U.P.C. in between
1977 to 1989. There was not even an
allegation that some information through
U.P.C. was sent for 12 years (between
1977 and 1989). What was the medical
certificate has not been mentioned in the
award. Sending letter/ application through
U.P.C. does not raise presumption of
service. In this regard, reference may be
made to Shiv Kumar Vs. State of
Haryana, 1994 (4) SCC 445 (para-6)
wherein the notices by the management to
workman were sent through certificate of
posting which fact was disputed and in that
context Supreme Court observed "We have
not felt safe to decide the controversy at
hand on the basis of the certificates
produced before us, as it is not difficult to
get such postal seals at any point of time."
The said authority has been quoted with
approval in Fakir Mohd. Vs. Sita Ram,
AIR 2002 SC 433. What the Supreme
Court has said in the above authority
regarding U.P.C. can also be said about
medical certificates of private doctors
produced
by
interested
parties.
Unscrupulous private doctors may issue
such certificates at any time showing any
type of complicated undetectable disease.

4. The labour court directed
reinstatement and further directed that
leave shall be sanctioned in accordance
swith law. Through interim order dated
18.12.2006 passed in this writ petition
execution of the impugned award was
stayed. The workman has died and
substituted by his legal representatives.

5. Supreme Court in A.M.U. Aligarh
Vs. M.A. Khan, AIR 2000 SC 2783 has
held
that
even
though
unauthorised
absence
is
a
misconduct
requiring
opportunity of hearing for termination on
the said ground, however if a person
challenges such termination in a writ
petition then he must show that in case
opportunity of hearing had been provided
to him what plausible cause he would have
shown. Same principle applies when such
termination is challenged in any other
forum like labour court.

6. Copy of letter/ information
allegedly sent through U.P.C. was not filed
before labour court. Precise nature of
illness and doctor's name was not
mentioned. Doctor's prescriptions and
receipts of purchasing the medicines were
also not filed. Neither in the written
statement copy of which is Annexure-4 to
the writ petition nor in oral deposition of
respondent No.1, Annexure-8 to the writ
petition any particulars were given. Even
this much has not been mentioned that
respondent
No.1
was
under
whose
treatment.

7. U.P.C. is not believable at all in
view of above Supreme Court authorities.
It is quite clear that respondent No.1 was
working somewhere else. He could not
show that he was prevented by sufficient
cause from attending his duties for 18
years.

8. Accordingly, writ petition is
allowed. Impugned award is set aside.
---------
1 All] Mohd. Wali Jan V. State of U.P. and another
139
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.01.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 72991 of 2010

Mohd. Wali Jan

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri N. K. Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C. S. C.

Constitution of India, Article 226-claim
of interest on belated release of retiral
benefits-the
department
asked
the
petitioner to deposit certain amount of
loss caused by petitioner-offer made by
petitioner to recover said amount from
his
retirement-benefits-even
then
payment not made within time-held-the
dereliction of duty in part of respondent
in not releasing the amount-direction
issued to pay interest @6 % per annum
within two month.

Held: Para-6

Admittedly,
retirement
benefits
was
required to be paid and the same was
not released upon the retirement of the
petitioner. The respondents were aware
that the petitioner would retire on a
particular date and was required to
process the retirement dues on or before
the date of retirement to enable the
petitioner to get the post retirement
dues. This court also finds that the
petitioner had made a request that the
loss suffered by the department may also
be adjusted and the balance amount may
be released thereafter. Even though a
specific request was made the same
remained un-addressed and no effort
was made by the department to release
the balance amount and the same was
released
only
when
the
contempt
proceedings were drawn against the
respondents.
Case Law discussed:
[(2008) 1 UPLBEC 301]

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The petitioner has filed the
present writ petition for payment of
interest at the rate of 18% per annum on
belated release of the retirement benefits.

3. The petitioner contended that he
retired as a Marketing Inspector on 30th
June 2004 and his post retirement benefits
were
not
released.
The
petitioner
accordingly filed Writ Petition No.54996
of 2008 which was disposed of by order
dated 3rd November 2008 directing the
respondents to decide the petitioner's
representation.

4. It transpires that the department
did not release the post retirement dues on
the ground that the petitioner had caused a
loss of Rs.5,10,604/- and that such
amount was liable to be recovered from
the petitioner. Even though the petitioner
disputed this amount, the petitioner, in
order to avoid any controversy, requested
the department to recover the amount of
the alleged loss from the post retirement
dues and release the balance amount. In
spite of this specific request being made,
the respondent did not release the amount
and when the petitioner filed contempt
proceedings, the respondents released an
amount of Rs.9593 by cheque dated 10th
September 2009, Rs.4,93,723/- by cheque
dated 10th September 2009 and another
sum of Rs.17,868/- by cheque dated 10th