# District Co-operative Bank Ltd v. Vth A.D.J., Azamgarh and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 162
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-01-31
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21011 of 1991
- **Bench:** D.P. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/district-co-operative-bank-ltd-v-vth-a-d-j-azamgarh-and-others-39927
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Sri Indal Singh
Sri Ashok Kumar Divedi
Sri Pradeep Kumar
S.C.

Payment
of
Wages
act-
15-
Reinstatement with back wages- wages
not quantified- workman not entitled for
10 times wages.

Held - Para 9

The third submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner appears to be
correct. Though, the award has not been
filed by either of the parties, however,
from a perusal of both the impugned
orders, it is apparent that the award had
not quantified the wages payable to the
respondent workmen. Also, there is
nothing on record to show that any
application
under
section
6-H
for
quantification
of
the
award
or
its
execution was filed. The petitioner had
clearly
stated
that
the
respondent
workman was reinstated in service on
2.9.1999
and
since
is
getting
all
emoluments admissible to him. This fact
has not been denied. Though , it is stated
that it has been treated to be an
appointment on probation. Be it may
that so, but there appears to be a
bonafide dispute as to the exact amount
of wages to be paid to the respondent
workman. A Division Bench of this Court
in the Case of Om Prakash Goel vs.
Lakshmi Ratan Engineering Works Ltd.
and other (1973 ALJ 538) has held that
in such bonafide disputes with regard to
the amount of wages to be paid, the
authority
is
not
entitled
to
award
compensation at ten times of the claim.
Thus, in my view, the amount of
compensation
awarded
to
the
respondent workman by the authorities
below was not justified.
Case law discussed:
1973 ALJ 538

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD JANUARY 31, 2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE D.P. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21011 of 1991

District
Co-operative
Bank
Limited,
Azamgarh

...Petitioner
Versus
Vth Additional District Judge, Azamgarh
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri N.D. Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Indal Singh
Sri Ashok Kumar Divedi
Sri Pradeep Kumar
S.C.

Payment
of
Wages
act-
15-
Reinstatement with back wages- wages
not quantified- workman not entitled for
10 times wages.

Held - Para 9

The third submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner appears to be
correct. Though, the award has not been
filed by either of the parties, however,
from a perusal of both the impugned
orders, it is apparent that the award had
not quantified the wages payable to the
respondent workmen. Also, there is
nothing on record to show that any
application
under
section
6-H
for
quantification
of
the
award
or
its
execution was filed. The petitioner had
clearly
stated
that
the
respondent
workman was reinstated in service on
2.9.1999
and
since
is
getting
all
emoluments admissible to him. This fact
has not been denied. Though , it is stated
that it has been treated to be an
appointment on probation. Be it may
that so, but there appears to be a
bonafide dispute as to the exact amount
of wages to be paid to the respondent
workman. A Division Bench of this Court
in the Case of Om Prakash Goel vs.
Lakshmi Ratan Engineering Works Ltd.
and other (1973 ALJ 538) has held that
in such bonafide disputes with regard to
the amount of wages to be paid, the
authority
is
not
entitled
to
award
compensation at ten times of the claim.
Thus, in my view, the amount of
compensation
awarded
to
the
respondent workman by the authorities
below was not justified.
Case law discussed:
1973 ALJ 538

(Delivered by Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri N.D. Shukla, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Indal
Singh, learned counsel for the workman at
length.

2. The writ petition arises out of
proceedings under section 15 of the
Payment of Wages Act. It is admitted
position that the respondent no. 3 who
was posted as Peon-cum-Guard with the
petitioner Bank worked at least from 24th
October, 1979 to 30th June 1981 when his
services were terminated on 1.7.1988. The
aforesaid
termination
resulted
in
a
reference under section 4 K of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court
passed an award dated 29th January, 1996
whereby the respondent workman was
reinstated with full back wages and
restored to his position as on 1.7.1981
with the same salary. The petitioner
challenged the award through a writ
petition before this Court. However, the
writ petition was dismissed by this Court
by an order dated 17th July, 1986.
Thereafter, since the salary was not being
paid to the respondent workman, he
lodged a case under section 15 of the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] District Co-operative Bank Ltd. V. Vth A.D.J., Azamgarh and others 163
Payment of Wages Act which application
was allowed vide order dated 22nd June,
1989. The appeal against the said order
was also dismissed on 9th January, 1991.
Both these orders have been challenged in
this writ petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioner raised
three submissions before me.

1.
Bonus and leave encashment not
being wages as defined under the Act,
thus the application was not maintainable.
2.
Application
was
time
barred,
therefore, no relief could be granted to the
workman.

4.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents workman, on the other hand,
submitted that none of these grounds were
taken before the courts below, therefore,
they cannot be urged for the first time in
the writ petition. Further, he contends that
bonus and leave encashment is also a part
of wages. The last contention is that in
any event, the petitioner is not entitled to
any relief, as on the facts of this case
equity is heavily against the petitioner.

No other point has been urged by
either of the parties.

5. The terms "wages" has been
defined in section 2 (vi) of the Act and the
relevant portion reads as under:

"2 (vi) wages means all remuneration
(whether by way of salary, allowances or
otherwise) expressed in terms of money or
capable of being so expressed which
would , if the terms of employment,
expressed or implied, were fulfilled, be
payable to a person employed in respect
of his employment or of work done in such
employment, and includes-
(a) any remuneration to which the person
employed is entitled in respect of over
time work or holidays or any leave
period.
(b)........
(c)........
(d) any sum to which the person
employed is entitled under any scheme
framed under any law for the time being
in force, but does not include-

(1) any bonus (whether under a scheme
of profit sharing or otherwise) which does
not form part of the remuneration payable
under the terms of employment or which
is not payable under any award or
settlement between the parties or order of
a court;
(2) ..........................................
(3) .........................................
(4) .........................................
(5) .........................................
(6) .........................................

6. The section itself is explicit that
any sum payable under a award or any
remuneration with respect to holidays or
leave period is covered by it. The only
exception made is that bonus under a
scheme of profit sharing is excluded but
bonus forming part of the remuneration
has not been excluded. The award has not
been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner
has also not averred either before this
court or before the authorities below, that
claim included under the head of bonus
did not form part of the remuneration
payable to the employees of the petitioner
bank. It is settled that the workmen are
entitled for grant of bonus as regular
remuneration under the Payment of Bonus
Act, 1965.

7.

Further,
remuneration
for
holidays and leave period are also
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
included within the said term. Therefore,
the first submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner has no force and is
rejected.

8. The submission that the claim is
time barred, also has no legs to stand. The
authority has considered this aspect and
on the facts disclosed in the application
under section 15 has found that there was
sufficient cause shown therein to justify
and explain the delay in making the
application . Therefore, the authority has
condoned the delay in making the
application. This being a finding of fact,
and also not shown to be perverse or
against the evidence on record cannot be
interfered with under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

9. The third submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner appears
to be correct. Though, the award has not
been filed by either of the parties,
however, from a perusal of both the
impugned orders, it is apparent that the
award had not quantified the wages
payable to the respondent workmen. Also,
there is nothing on record to show that
any application under section 6-H for
quantification
of the
award or
its
execution was filed. The petitioner had
clearly
stated
that
the
respondent
workman was reinstated in service on
2.9.1999
and
since
is
getting
all
emoluments admissible to him. This fact
has not been denied. Though , it is stated
that it has been treated to be an
appointment on probation. Be it may that
so, but there appears to be a bonafide
dispute as to the exact amount of wages to
be paid to the respondent workman. A
Division Bench of this Court in the Case
of Om Prakash Goel vs. Lakshmi Ratan
Engineering Works Ltd. and other (1973
ALJ 538) has held that in such bonafide
disputes with regard to the amount of
wages to be paid, the authority is not
entitled to award compensation at ten
times of the claim. Thus, in my view, the
amount of compensation awarded to the
respondent workman by the authorities
below was not justified.

10. The contention of the learned for
the
workman
that
ground
of
maintainability was not taken is devoid of
any merit. A bare perusal of the impugned
orders show that the grounds were urged.
So far as, the applicability of the
principles of equity is concerned, it has a
double edge. From the pleadings it does
not appear that the respondent workman
adopted the normal procedure. He should
have applied first for quantification of the
wages under the award and then put the
same into execution. Though, there was
some delay in implementing a part of the
award, but, it is not such a case where it
can be said that the action or omission of
the employer was wholly malafide. To
me, equity in the present case appears to
be evenly balanced.

11. On the basis of the discussions
above, the writ petition is partly allowed
and the award of compensation is hereby
quashed. The rest of the order, however,
is maintained. Whatever the petitioner has
deposited on the basis of the interim order
of this court would be adjusted when the
impugned orders, as truncated by this
court is implemented. The writ petition is,
therefore, partly allowed on the terms
mentioned above. Costs on parties.
---------
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] M/s Agarwal Dal and Oil Mill V. State of U.P. and others 165
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD FEBRUARY 11, 2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1246 of 1988

M/s Agarwal Dal and Oil Mill ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.V. Gupta
Sri Shashi Kant Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.P. Kesharwani, S.C.

U.P. Sales Tax (now Trade Tax) Act-
Section 4-A- the order rejecting the
application
for
grant
of
eligibility
certificate
are
based
on
irrelevant
considerations and the petitioner is
entitled for exemption even if it was
trading in oil seed.

Held- Para 8
In view of the above the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned orders dated
16th March, 1988, communicated by the
letter dated 31.3.1988 (Annexure 3 to
the writ petition) and the order dated
2.6.1988 filed as Annexure cA-1 to the
counter affidavit rejecting the review
application
of
the
petitioner
are
quashed. Since no other ground was
taken for refusing to grant eligibility
certificate to the petitioner, we direct
the respondents to issue the requisite
eligibility certificate to the petitioner
under section 4 A of the U.P. Trade Tax
Act.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.)

1. The petitioner has challenged the
orders dated 31.3.1988 and 2.6.1986
rejecting the petitioner's application for
grant of eligibility certificate under
section 4A of the U.P. Sales Tax (now
Trade Tax) Act by the Divisional Level
Committee.

2. The petitioner is a partnership
firm registered under the Partnership Act
and it established a new industry to
manufacture oil in the year 1983. The
petitioner was also carrying on the
business of oil seeds (Telhan). The
petitioner 's application for the grant of
eligibility certificate was rejected solely
on the ground that the unit besides
production of oil is also doing trading
business of Telhan, vide annexure 3 to the
writ petition. The said order is dated
16.3.1988 communicated to the petitioner
by means of letter dated 31.3.1988.
Thereafter the petitioner filed review
application and also placed reliance upon
the Circular of the Commissioner of
Trade Tax, dated 25.2.1988 with respect
to the new units established in between
1.10.1982 to 31st March, 1990. However,
the said review application was also
dismissed. The certified copy of the order
rejecting the review application was not
annexed alongwith the writ petition.
However,
this
Court
on
7.12.1988
directed the Standing Counsel to file the
copy of the order passed on the review
application,
by
which
the
review
application was rejected. The said order
has been filed as annexure CA-1 to the
counter affidavit sworn by Sri Shyam
Sundar Chaurasia filed on behalf of
District Industries Centre. A perusal of
the same shows that review application
was also rejected on the same ground.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid two
orders the present writ petition has been
filed.