# M/s BAGSON v. Labour Court, II and Anr - **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 863 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2013-05-09 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26924 of 2008 - **Bench:** Bharati Sapru - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-bagson-v-labour-court-ii-and-anr-42632 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote U.P. Industrial Dispute Act-1947-Section 6-N- Writ against award for reinstated with full back wages-pursuant to interim order of writ court in compliance of provisions under section 17-B Rs. 17000/- deposited by petitioner-workman at the time of award was 57 years old-for violation of the provisions of section 6-Ntribunal ought to have grant lum-sum compensation-after death of workmanaward modified to release Rs. 17000/- apart from compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in favor of heirs of the workman. Held: Para-8 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record and in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the opinion that it would be just and fair that since the workman is no more, a compensation of Rs.16,000/- which has already been deposited before the Labour Court may be released to the heirs of respondent workman along with another sum of Rs.50,000/- which have been agreed by both the parties before this court, may be paid to legal heirs and representative of the workman as full and final compensation for violation of provisions of section 6-N of the Act. It is directed that the amount as indicated above, shall be released to the legal heirs and representative of the respondent workman within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order. Case Law discussed: (2007) 9 SCC 748; (2008) 5 SCC 75 ## Text 2 All] M/s BAGSON Vs. Labour Court, II and Anr. 863 Seniority Rules is to be adopted, as in the present case, then the proviso to Rule 5 of the 1991 Rules makes it clear that a person would loose seniority if he fails to join except for any valid reason, on which the decision of the appointing authority shall be final. The Principal or the Management or even the District Inspector of Schools have not cared to make any such assessment inspite of the petitioner having taken this stand clearly that his joining late was not voluntary and was delayed as he was not relieved timely by the earlier institution. Thus on this score Sri Mishra is right in his submission. 34. The petitioner was shown senior in the documents since 2006. 35. In view of what has been indicated above and the fact that the petitioner is senior in age and there is no material to indicate that he had himself defaulted by not joining the institution, the petitioner is also entitled for an interim relief. 36. Until further orders of the court the operation of the order dated 11th of February, 2013 shall remain stayed. 37. A copy of the order shall be given to the learned Standing Counsel within five days free of charges for compliance. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE BHARATI SAPRU, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26924 of 2008 M/s Bagson ...Petitioner Versus Labour Court, II and Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Shakti Swarup Nigam Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Rajesh Tiwari U.P. Industrial Dispute Act-1947-Section 6-N- Writ against award for reinstated with full back wages-pursuant to interim order of writ court in compliance of provisions under section 17-B Rs. 17000/- deposited by petitioner-workman at the time of award was 57 years old-for violation of the provisions of section 6-Ntribunal ought to have grant lum-sum compensation-after death of workmanaward modified to release Rs. 17000/- apart from compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in favor of heirs of the workman. Held: Para-8 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record and in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the opinion that it would be just and fair that since the workman is no more, a compensation of Rs.16,000/- which has already been deposited before the Labour Court may be released to the heirs of respondent workman along with another sum of Rs.50,000/- which have been agreed by both the parties before this court, may be paid to legal heirs and representative of the workman as full and final compensation for violation of provisions of section 6-N of the Act. It is directed that the amount as indicated above, shall be released to the legal heirs and representative of the respondent workman within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order. Case Law discussed: (2007) 9 SCC 748; (2008) 5 SCC 75 (Delivered by Hon'ble Bharti Sapru, J.) 864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by an award of the Labour Court dated 3.1.2008 by which the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the services of the respondent workman were terminated in violation of provisions of section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 2. The Labour Court has reinstated the workman along with 60% of his back wages. From the record, it is reflected that the workman was 53 years of age at the time when he raised an industrial dispute. Consequently he would have inevitably retired in the year 2002. However this aspect of the matter has not been taken into in the award of the Labour Court. 3. Learned counsel for both sides who are present in court have informed the court that the workman is no more. He passed away in the year 2009. 4. This petition was filed in the year 2008 and the court has passed an interim order on 4.6.2008 by which the petitioner was asked to comply with the provisions of section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. Petitioner states that he had complied with the provisions of section 17-B of the Act and in pursuance thereof, Rs.16,000/- have been deposited before the Labour Court. The workman however did not turn up. 6. In recent decision of the court in Madhya Pradesh Administration versus Tribhuban reported in (2007) 9 SCC 748 and Sita Ram versus Motilal Nehru Farmers Training Institute reported in (2008) 5 SCC 75, the Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that subject to the facts in each given case, a compensation in lieu of reinstatement could be given where there is violation of section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the workman is no more and finding of the Labour Court is that section 6-N of the Act is violated, the Labour Court ought to have taken into account these facts and the legal heirs of the workman could have given compensation in lieu of reinstatement and that too for the period when he had not reached the age of superannuation and no relief could have been given beyond that. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record and in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the opinion that it would be just and fair that since the workman is no more, a compensation of Rs.16,000/- which has already been deposited before the Labour Court may be released to the heirs of respondent workman along with another sum of Rs.50,000/- which have been agreed by both the parties before this court, may be paid to legal heirs and representative of the workman as full and final compensation for violation of provisions of section 6-N of the Act. It is directed that the amount as indicated above, shall be released to the legal heirs and representative of the respondent workman within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order. 9. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.05.2013 BEFORE