# Kanpur Electricity Supply Co. Ltd v. Deepak Sikroria & Anr

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1619
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-12-19
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8125 of 1998
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kanpur-electricity-supply-co-ltd-v-deepak-sikroria-anr-42834
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947-Section
33(c)(2)-Application
for
execution
of
realization of amount of award-already got
finally by apex court-inspite of direction of
court-in the term of award not compliedwith
letter
and
spirit-contention
that
computation of arrear of salary-amounts to
adjudication of claim-not permissible under
mode
of
execution-held-misconceiveddirection for compliance of award with 9%
interest-given.

Held: Para-21
The grievance of the workman was that
even after 10 years, the award of the
Labour Court and the order of the
Supreme Court were not complied with
in true letter and spirit but were
complied
with
partly,
therefore,
he
moved an application under Section 33C
(2) of the Act, 1947 in respect of a claim,
1620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which was already adjudicated upon by
the Labour Court in Adjudication Case
No. 105 of 1980. In view of the law laid
down by the Supreme Court, it cannot be
said that the present application filed by
the workman under Section 33C(2) of
the Act, 1947 was not based on existing
right. In fact, his right has already been
adjudicated upon by the Labour Court
and the application moved by the
workman under Section 33C(2) of the
Act, 1947 was in respect of a claim,
which has already been adjudicated by
the Labour Court and upheld by the
Supreme Court. Therefore, in my view,
the submission of learned Counsel for
the petitioner that the application under
Section 33C(2) of the Act, 1947 was not
maintainable as it was not in respect of
the existing right, is not acceptable and
the application of the workman was
maintainable and it was in respect of an
existing right

Case Law discussed:
(1964) 3 SCR 140; (2005) 8 SCC 58.

## Text

3 All] Kanpur Electricity Supply Co.Ltd. Vs. Deepak Sikroria & Anr.
1619
Rule 109 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Rules and order was passed on 09.01.1989.
Thereafter, petitioner's name was mutated. In
case petitioner's review had been allowed
then there was absolutely no question as to
why petitioner would have remained silent.
Even in the report of Consolidator, copy of
which is Annexure-7, it has categorically
been stated that mutation of the alleged order
of March 1972 was not there in C.H. Form45 available in Tehsil. In case order dated
24.03.1972 had in fact been passed there was
no reason that why it was not included and
mentioned in C.H. Form-45. In any case if
due to inadvertence it had not been in fact so
incorporated, it is impossible that petitioner
would have remained silent for 15 years.

7. It is experience of the court that in
consolidation people are rather liberally
manufacturing forged orders and seeking
their implementation after several years.
Accordingly, no such order can be
presumed to have been passed unless
application for its mutation is promptly
filed. Records of the revision have been
weeded out.

8. Last but not least a Full Bench of
this court reported in Smt. Anar Kali Vs.
D.D.C., 1997 (15) LCD 921 has held that
D.D.C. has got no power to review.

9. As it was stark forgery and
manipulation, hence impugned orders cannot
be set aside on the ground of denial of
opportunity of hearing. In any case in the writ
petition petitioner has thoroughly been heard
and original records have also been shown to
his learned counsel as well as to the court.

10. The argument that in respect of
abadi land, petitioner should not be
evicted is also not acceptable as from the
original records of 1359 Fasli, it is evident
that over the said land also name of the
petitioner's father was inserted much later
fraudulently.

11. Accordingly, writ petition is
dismissed. Petitioner shall be evicted
forthwith.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8125 of 1998

Kanpur Electricity Supply Co. Ltd..
 ..Petitioner
Versus
Deepak Sikroria & Anr..... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arvind Kumar, Sri Nripendra Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri S.N. Dubey

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947-Section
33(c)(2)-Application
for
execution
of
realization of amount of award-already got
finally by apex court-inspite of direction of
court-in the term of award not compliedwith
letter
and
spirit-contention
that
computation of arrear of salary-amounts to
adjudication of claim-not permissible under
mode
of
execution-held-misconceiveddirection for compliance of award with 9%
interest-given.

Held: Para-21
The grievance of the workman was that
even after 10 years, the award of the
Labour Court and the order of the
Supreme Court were not complied with
in true letter and spirit but were
complied
with
partly,
therefore,
he
moved an application under Section 33C
(2) of the Act, 1947 in respect of a claim,
1620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which was already adjudicated upon by
the Labour Court in Adjudication Case
No. 105 of 1980. In view of the law laid
down by the Supreme Court, it cannot be
said that the present application filed by
the workman under Section 33C(2) of
the Act, 1947 was not based on existing
right. In fact, his right has already been
adjudicated upon by the Labour Court
and the application moved by the
workman under Section 33C(2) of the
Act, 1947 was in respect of a claim,
which has already been adjudicated by
the Labour Court and upheld by the
Supreme Court. Therefore, in my view,
the submission of learned Counsel for
the petitioner that the application under
Section 33C(2) of the Act, 1947 was not
maintainable as it was not in respect of
the existing right, is not acceptable and
the application of the workman was
maintainable and it was in respect of an
existing right

Case Law discussed:
(1964) 3 SCR 140; (2005) 8 SCC 58.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Singh Baghel, J.)

1. This writ petition was initially
filed by the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity
Board through Kanpur Electricity Supply
Administration.
However,
during
pendency of the writ petition, there was
reorganisation of the Electricity Board,
therefore, with the permission of the
Court,
Kanpur
Electricity
Supply
Company Limited through its General
Manager has been substituted as the writ
petitioner.

2. The writ petition is directed
against the order and award of the Labour
Court (I), U.P., Kanpur dated 15th
December, 1997 passed in Misc. Case No.
115 of 1997, in proceedings under Section
33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, whereby the respondent no. 1 has
been awarded an amount of Rs.1,38,251/-
as arrears of difference of pay in the pay
scale of Stenographer Selection Grade
with effect from 01st April, 1984 to 30th
April, 1997.

3. The essential facts, as averred by
the petitioner, are that the respondent no.
1-workman was initially appointed as
Stenographer in the establishment of the
petitioner on 16th November, 1976. In the
year 1980, he raised an industrial dispute,
being Adjudication Case No. 105 of 1980,
claiming pay scale and designation of the
Stenographer
Selection
Grade.
The
Labour
Court
allowed
his
claim.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner
preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)
No. 6468 of 1981, which was dismissed
by the Supreme Court and the award of
the Labour Court was upheld. It is stated
that in compliance of the order of the
Supreme Court and the Labour Court, the
petitioner vide order dated 31st October,
1985 implemented the award of the
Labour Court and the respondent no. 1
was given the pay scale of Rs. 610-955, as
revised from time to time. A copy of the
order dated 31st October, 1985 has been
brought on record as Annexure-1 to the
writ petition. It is further stated that the
respondent no. 1 was also given benefit of
the Board's order dated 28th August,
1995, whereby pay scale of Rs.610-955
was revised to Rs.1650-2690. It is also
stated that the respondent no. 1 was given
all his dues in terms of the award of the
Labour Court passed in Adjudication
Case No. 105 of 1980.

4. The respondent no. 1, however,
was not satisfied with the said order of the
Board and he claimed that he was entitled
for the grade/ pay scale of Rs.1850-2930
with effect from 01st April, 1984. It is
3 All] Kanpur Electricity Supply Co.Ltd. Vs. Deepak Sikroria & Anr.
1621
averred that on 21st September, 1989 the
salary of the respondent no. 1 was refixed in the revised grade and the pay
scale of Rs.1850-2930 was not admissible
to
him
as
it
was
given
to
the
Stenographers attached to the Chief
Engineer, Grade-I.

5. When the demand of respondent
no. 1 for the pay scale of Rs.1850-2930
was
not
accepted,
he
moved
an
application under Section 33C(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short,
the "Act, 1947") on 29th May, 1996,
which was registered as Misc. Case No.
123 of 1996, before the Labour Court (I),
U.P. at Kanpur. By means of said
application, the respondent no. 1 claimed
that he was entitled to the pay scale of
Rs.1850-2930 with effect from 01st April,
1984 and Rs.2225-3500 with effect from
16th November, 1992 and thus, the
amount due to him was Rs.84,795.50. A
true copy of the application of the
petitioner filed under Section 33C(2) of
the Act, 1947 is on the record as
annexure-6
to
the
writ
petition.
Subsequently, the respondent no. 1 moved
a fresh application under Section 33C(2)
of the Act, 1947 claiming a sum of
Rs.1,38,251/-, on the basis of fresh
calculation, along with 18% interest. This
application was registered as Misc. Case
No. 115 of 1997. A copy of the said
application has been brought on record as
annexure-7 to the writ petition. Against
the
application
so
moved
by
the
workman,
the
petitioner
filed
its
objection. Before the Labour Court, the
petitioner got examined one Sri Ramesh
Babu Sharma. A copy of his statement is
annexure-10 to the writ petition. The
Labour Court by the impugned order
dated 15th December, 1997 has found that
the claim of the respondent no. 1 is
justified and accordingly, allowed the
application of the petitioner, being Misc.
Case No. 115 of 1997, and the petitioner
has been directed to pay the respondent
no. 1 a sum of Rs. 1,38,251/- within two
months.

6. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid
order of the Labour Court, the petitioner
preferred this writ petition.

7. On 16th March, 1998, when this
writ petition was entertained, an interim
order was passed by this Court staying the
operation of the impugned award subject
to deposit of 25% of the awarded amount.

8. Respondent no. 1 has filed a
counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that
for grant of pay scale of Stenographer
Selection Grade he had raised an
industrial dispute, which was registered as
Adjudication Case No. 105 of 1980, in the
Labour Court (IV), U.P., Kanpur wherein
award was made in favour of respondent
no. 1 and it was held that he was entitled
for the Stenographer Selection Grade.

9. It is noteworthy that at that point
of time the pay scale admissible to the
Stenographer
Selection
Grade
was
Rs.250-500 with effect from 01st April,
1969 and on the recommendation of the
Anomaly Committee with effect from
01st April, 1969 it was revised to Rs.300655, which was further revised to Rs.6651130 with effect from 01st April, 1979
and not the pay scale of Rs.610-955. Pay
scale of Rs.610-955 was the pay scale of
Stenographer (Ordinary Grade) and not
the Stenographer Selection Grade.

10. It is further stated in the counter
affidavit that as a result of revision of the
pay scale, the pay scale of Rs.665-1130
1622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has been revised to Rs.1850-2930 with
effect from 01st April, 1984. Thus, the
respondent no. 1 was entitled for the pay
scale of Rs.1850-2930 with effect from
01st April, 1984 and after completion of 9
years' service, he was entitled to first
time-scale of Rs. 1800-3150 and after 16
years' service second time-scale of
Rs.2225-3600 with effect from 16th
November, 1992. It is also stated that the
respondent no. 1, who is the senior-most,
was attached to Sri K.K. Singh, Chief
Engineer (G&D), Sri S.C. Chawla, Chief
Engineer (Commercial), and Sri A.K.
Mitra,
Chief
Engineer
(Commercial)/C.B.S.C.. He has brought
on record various orders in support of the
said contention.

11. A supplementary counter
affidavit has been filed by the respondent
no. 1, wherein it is stated that when in
spite of the order of the Supreme Court
dated 30th September, 1985 the petitioner
did not pay his dues in terms of the award
passed
by
the
Labour
Court
in
Adjudication Case No. 105 of 1980, the
respondent no. 1 approached the Supreme
Court by filing Civil Misc. Petition No.
42952 of 1985 (Deepak Sikeria v. Area
Manager,
Kanpur
Electricity
Supply
Admn. & anr.), which was disposed of on
15th September, 1987 on the statement of
learned Counsel for the petitioner that
payment shall be made within four weeks.
It is further stated that when even after the
order of the Supreme Court dated 15th
September, 1987 the petitioner did not
make the payment in terms of the award
of the Labour Court, the respondent no. 1
had no other option but to move an
application under Section 33C(2) of the
Act, 1947 before the Labour Court (I). In
fact, the order of the Supreme Court has
been partly implemented and that too after
nearly 10 years of passing of order by the
Supreme Court. The Labour Court by the
impugned order has rightly computed the
benefits due to the workman in terms of
the award and orders of the Supreme
Court and allowed the application of the
respondent no. 1-workman under Section
33C(2) of the Act, 1947 thereby directing
the petitioner to make the payment of a
sum of Rs.1,38,251/- to the respondent
no. 1.

12. I have heard Sri Arvind Kumar,
learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri
S.N. Dubey, learned Counsel for the
respondent no. 1-workman.

13. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that the application
under Section 33C(2) of the Act, 1947 for
grant of grade of Rs. 1850-2930 was not
in respect of the existing claim and, as
such, his application under Section 33C
(2) was not maintainable.

14. Learned Counsel for the
respondent no. 1 Sri Dubey submits that
the respondent-workman was entitled for
the designation of Stenographer Selection
Grade with effect from 20th December,
1980, which was given to him by the
Labour Court by means of the award
passed in Adjudication Case No. 105 of
1980, which award was upheld by the
Supreme Court. Though the pay scale of
the Stenographer Selection Grade was
revised from time to time, but the
workman was not given benefit of the
same in spite of being entitled. It has been
further
submitted
that
during
the
pendency of the present writ petition, the
petitioner itself vide order dated 19th
June, 2007 accepted the claim of the
petitioner, as directed by the Supreme
3 All] Kanpur Electricity Supply Co.Ltd. Vs. Deepak Sikroria & Anr.
1623
Court, and by a subsequent order dated
23rd June, 2008 salary of the respondent
no. 1 has been fixed in the pay scale of
Rs.1850-2930 from 01st April, 1984.
However, an illegal rider has been put in
the order that no arrears will be paid. He
further urged that the dispute is now
confined for the period from 01st April,
1984 to 1997.

15. I have considered the respective
submissions advanced by the learned
Counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the record. .

16. I find it helpful to extract
Section 33C(2) of the Act, 1947, which
reads as under:

"33C. Recovery of money due from
an employer.--(1) **** ****

(2) Where any workman is entitled to
receive from the employer any money or any
benefit which is capable of being computed
in terms of money and if any question arises
as to the amount of money due or as to the
amount at which such benefit should be
computed, then the question may, subject to
any rules that may be made under this Act,
be decided by such Labour Court as may be
specified in this behalf by the appropriate
Government within a period not exceeding
three months:

Provided that where the presiding
officer of a Labour Court considers it
necessary or expedient so to do, he may,
for reasons to be recorded in writing,
extend such period by such further period
as he may think fit."

17. Scope of Section 33C(2) of the
Act, 1947 is no more res integra as the
Supreme Court in the long course of the
judgements has settled the scope of said
section. The Supreme Court in the case of
The Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S.
Rajagopalan etc., (1964) 3 SCR 140, has
held as under:

"16. Let us then revert to the words
used in s. 33C(2) in order to decide what
would be its true scope and effect on a
fair and reasonable construction. When
sub-s. (2) refers to any workman entitled
to receive from the employer any benefit
there specified, does it mean that he must
be a workman whose right to receive the
said benefit is not disputed by the
employer? According to the appellant, the
scope of sub-s. (2) is similar to that of
sub-s. (1) and it is pointed out that just as
under sub-s. (1) any disputed question
about the workmen's right to receive the
money due under an award cannot be
adjudicated upon by the appropriate
Government, so under sub-s. (2) if a
dispute is raised about the workmen's
right to receive the benefit in question,
that cannot be determined by the Labour
Court. The only point which the Labour
Court can determine is one in relation to
the computation of the benefit in terms of
money. We are not impressed by this
argument. In our opinion, on a fair and
reasonable construction of sub-s. (2) it is
clear that if a workman's right to receive
the benefit is disputed, that may have to
be determined by the Labour Court.
Before proceeding to compute the benefit
in term of money the Labour Court
inevitably has to deal with the question as
to whether the workman has a right to
receive that benefit. If the said right is not
disputed, nothing more needs to be done
and the Labour Court can proceed to
compute the value of the benefit in terms
of money; but if the said right is disputed,
the Labour Court must deal with that
1624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
question and decide whether the workman
has the right to receive the benefit as
alleged by him and it is only if the Labour
Court answers this point in favour of the
workman that the next question of making
necessary computation can arise. It seems
to us that the opening clause of sub-s. (2)
does not admit of the construction for
which the appellant contends unless we
add some words in that clause. The
Clause "Where any workman is entitled to
receive from the employer any benefit"
does not mean "where such workman is
admittedly, or admitted to be, entitled to
receive such benefit." The appellant's
construction would necessarily introduce
the addition of the words "admittedly, or
admitted to be" in that clause, and that
clearly is not permissible. Besides, it
seems to us that if the appellant's
construction
is
accepted,
it
would
necessarily mean that it would be at the
option of the employer to allow the
workman to avail himself of the remedy
provided by sub-s. (2), because he has
merely to raise an objection on the ground
that the right claimed by the workman is
not admitted to oust the jurisdiction of the
Labour Court to entertain the workman's
application. The claim under s. 33C(2)
clearly postulates that the determination
of the question about computing the
benefit in terms of money may, in some
cases, have to be preceded by an enquiry
into the existence of the right and such an
enquiry must be held to be incidental to
the main determination which has been
assigned to the Labour Court by sub-s.
(2). As Maxwell has observed "where an
Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly
also grants the power of doing all such
acts, or employing such means, as are
essentially necessary to its execution(1)."
We must accordingly hold that s.33C(2)
takes within its purview cases of
workmen who claimed that the benefit to
which they are entitled should be
computed in terms of money, even though
the right to the benefit on which their
claim is based is disputed by their
employers.
Incidentally,
it
may
be
relevant to add that it would be somewhat
odd that under sub-s.(3), the Labour Court
should have been authorised to delegate
the work of computing the money value
of the benefit to the Commissioner if the
determination of the said question was the
only task assigned to the Labour Court
under sub-s. (2). On the other hand, sub-s.
3 becomes intelligible if it is held that
what
can
be
assigned
to
the
Commissioner includes only a part of the
assignment of the Labour Court under
sub-s. (2)."

18. In State of U.P. and another v.
Brijpal Singh, (2005) 8 SCC 58, the
Supreme Court has held as follows:

"10. It is well settled that the
workman can proceed under Section 33C(2)
only
after
the
Tribunal
has
adjudicated on a complaint under Section
33-A or on a reference under Section 10
that the order of discharge or dismissal
was not justified and has set aside that
order and reinstated the workman. This
Court in the case of Punjab Beverages (P)
Ltd. v. Suresh Chand2 held that a
proceeding under Section 33-C(2) is a
proceeding in the nature of execution
proceeding in which the Labour Court
calculates the amount of money due to a
workman from the employer, or, if the
workman is entitled to any benefit which
is capable of being computed in terms of
money, proceeds to compute the benefit
in terms of money. Proceeding further,
this Court held that the right to the money
which is sought to be calculated or to the
3 All] Kanpur Electricity Supply Co.Ltd. Vs. Deepak Sikroria & Anr.
1625
benefit which is sought to be computed
must be an existing one, that is to say,
already adjudicated upon or provided for
and must arise in the course of and in
relation to the relationship between the
industrial workman, and his employer.
This Court further held as follows: (SCC
p. 150, para 4)

"It is not competent to the Labour
Court
exercising
jurisdiction
under
Section 33-C(2) to arrogate to itself the
functions of an Industrial Tribunal and
entertain a claim which is not based on an
existing
right
but
which
may
appropriately be made the subject-matter
of an industrial dispute in a reference
under Section 10 of the Act.""

19. Principles of law, which emanate
from the above judgements, are that the
proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the
Act, 1947 are like execution proceedings.
Right to money which is claimed by
workman must be existing one. Therefore,
there is no need to adjudicate the claim,
only calculation is required to be done. In
other words, Labour Court can only
compute the money in terms of earlier
adjudication.

20. In the case in hand, the workman
had raised a dispute with regard to the pay
scale of Stenographer Selection Grade.
His claim was adjudicated upon in
Adjudication Case No. 105 of 1980 by the
Labour Court. The Labour Court in its
award
found
that
the
workman,
respondent no. 1 herein, was entitled for
the pay scale of Stenographer Selection
Grade. Aggrieved by the said award of the
Labour Court, the petitioner preferred a
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 6468
of 1981, wherein the award of the Labour
Court was upheld. However, when despite
that the petitioner did not comply with the
order of the Supreme Court and award of
the Labour Court, the respondent no. 1
approached the Supreme Court by filing
Civil Misc. Petition No. 42952 of 1985,
wherein, after hearing both the parties, on
15th September, 1987 the Supreme Court
passed the following order:

"Shri Markandeya, learned counsel
for U.P. State Electricity Board makes a
statement at the Bar that the Board shall
in compliance with this Court's order
dated September 30, 1983, pay to the
petitioner whatever is due on account of
the salary and allowances payable to him
as a Stenographer, Selection Grade, with
effect from October 7, 1983. The payment
shall be made within 4 weeks from today.
C.M.P. is disposed of accordingly."

21. The grievance of the workman was
that even after 10 years, the award of the
Labour Court and the order of the Supreme
Court were not complied with in true letter
and spirit but were complied with partly,
therefore, he moved an application under
Section 33C (2) of the Act, 1947 in respect
of a claim, which was already adjudicated
upon by the Labour Court in Adjudication
Case No. 105 of 1980. In view of the law
laid down by the Supreme Court, it cannot be
said that the present application filed by the
workman under Section 33C(2) of the Act,
1947 was not based on existing right. In fact,
his right has already been adjudicated upon
by the Labour Court and the application
moved by the workman under Section
33C(2) of the Act, 1947 was in respect of a
claim, which has already been adjudicated by
the Labour Court and upheld by the Supreme
Court. Therefore, in my view, the submission
of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the
application under Section 33C(2) of the Act,
1947 was not maintainable as it was not in
1626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respect of the existing right, is not acceptable
and the application of the workman was
maintainable and it was in respect of an
existing right.

22. Relevant it would be to mention
that before the Labour Court the respondent
no. 1 had moved an application dated 25th
September, 1997 to summon certain orders
of the petitioner. But in spite of the order
having been passed when the documents
were not produced, the respondent no. 1 had
filed photocopies of the said orders before
the Labour Court. The Labour Court after
perusal of the order of the petitioner dated
10th January, 1977 found that the pay scale
of the Stenographer Selection Grade was
Rs.300-655 with effect from 01st April,
1969, which was revised to Rs.540-900 with
effect from 01st April, 1974. Again it was
revised to Rs.656-1121 and thereafter
Rs.665-1130 with effect from 01st April,
1979. Thereafter, vide Board's order dated
28th August, 1995 it was revised to Rs.18502930. The Labour Court has recorded that
the employer/petitioner did not file any
documentary evidence to establish its claim
that the pay scale of the Stenographer
Selection Grade was Rs.485-755. It has also
recorded the statement of the only witness
produced by the employer, namely, Sri
Ramesh Babu Sharma, who deposed that he
did not know any fact with regard to
previous award of the Labour Court and the
order of the Supreme Court. He also could
not satisfy the Labour Court that why the
papers summoned by the Court on the
application of the respondent no. 1-workman
were not produced. There is a recital in the
impugned order that said witness of the
employer admitted in his deposition that the
pay scale of Rs.665-1130 was revised to
Rs.1850-2930. The Labour Court has, thus,
on the basis of documents and oral evidence,
recorded a finding of fact about the revision
of pay scale of the Stenographer Selection
Grade to Rs.1850-2930.

23. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
failed to point out any infirmity in the
findings recorded by the Labour Court.

24. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the view
that there is no error in the impugned order
and award of the Labour Court to warrant any
interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Accordingly, the award
of the Labour Court is upheld. The petitioner
is directed to make the payment in terms of
the award passed by the Labour Court within
three months from the date of communication
of this order. The respondent no. 1 shall be
entitled for interest @ 9% from the date of
award till the payment is actually made to
him. Needless to say that the amount received
by the respondent no. 1 in compliance with
the interim order of this Court dated 16th
March, 1998 shall be adjusted.

25. Thus, the writ petition fails and
is hereby dismissed.

26. No order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK PAL SINGH

Misc. Bench No. 10533 of 2013
and Misc. Bench No. 10529 of 2013.

Dr. Kailash Singh & Ors.... Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. ..Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri
Anurag
Kumar
Singh