# The U.P.S.R.T.C v. Hari Shankar Verma

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 1088
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-23
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 33663 of 2007
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-u-p-s-r-t-c-v-hari-shankar-verma-52392
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Labour Law - U.P. Industrial Dispute
Act,1947 - Section 17-B - Mere quotation
of wrong provision of interim order will
not make the interim order redundant. An
order passed by competent court, interim
or final, has to be abided without any
reservation and if such order is violated,
the Court may refuse the party violating
such order to hear him on merit. (Para 16)

There is no dispute about the fact that Labour
Court vide impugned award reinstated the
respondent No. 1 in service with 50% of back
wages and other allowances from the date of
dismissal
of
service
upto
the
date
of
reinstatement in service withholding two annual
increments permanently. There is also no
dispute about the fact that this Court has
passed the conditional interim order dated 2607-2007 but petitioner has not reinstated the
respondent No. 1 who ultimately expired on 309-2015. Writ petition filed by petitioner is liable
8 All. The U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Hari Shankar Verma
1089
to be dismissed due to non-compliance of the
condition mentioned in the interim order. There
is also no dispute about the fact that petitioner
has filed modification application on 18-03-2021
in respect to the interim order dated 26- 072007 and 23-02-2021. (Para 13, 16)

There is no illegality in the impugned award.
(Para 15)

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, the writ petition is dismissed with
following direction:

i.
Petitioner shall release the arrears of
50% of back wages of deceasedrespondent
No.
1
in
favour
of
respondent No. 1/ 1 to 1/ 4 from the
date of termination (11-04-1991) to
the date of passing of interim order
dated 26-07-2007 within period of two
months from today.

ii.
Petitioner shall release the arrears of
full wages of deceased-respondent No.
1 from the date of passing of interim
order dated 26-07-2007 till the date of
his death (3- 09-2015) within period of
3 months from today.

iii.
In case of non-payment of arrears of
wages in aforementioned period, the
petitioner shall pay interest to the
respondent Nos. 1/1 to1/4 at the rate
of
6%
per
annum
on
the
aforementioned amount. (Para 17)

Writ petition dismissed with directions. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

Prestige Ltd. Vs S.B.I., (2007) 8 SCC 449 (Para
16)

Precedent cited:

## Text

1088 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated 2.1.2022 has been acknowledged and
recognized by the Deputy Registrar vide
his order dated 6.1.2022. The writ petition
challenging the order dated 6.1.2022 passed
by the Deputy Registrar is still pending and
no interim orders have been passed in the
said writ petition. The claim of the
petitioners regarding the elections dated
2.1.2022 was, prima facie, established and
could not have been rejected by the
Regional Level Committee.

31. For the aforesaid reasons, the
order dated 3.6.2023 passed by the
Regional Level Committee rejecting the
elections dated 2.1.2022 set up by the
petitioner is contrary to law.

32. In light of the reasons given
above, and because I have considered the
order passed by the Regional Level
Committee on merits, I have not considered
the submission of the counsel for the
petitioner regarding maintainability of the
representation submitted by respondent No.
5 before the Regional Level Committee as
the same is not required.

33. For the aforesaid reasons, the
order dated 3.6.2023 passed by the
Regional
Level
Committee
and
the
consequential order dated 17.6.2023 passed
by the D.I.O.S., Mathura are contrary to
law and are liable to be quashed and are
hereby quashed. The order dated 28.2.2022
passed by the D.I.O.S., Mathura is restored.

34. The D.I.O.S. is directed to
ensure that petitioner No. 2 as Manager of
the Committee of Management of the
Institution is handed over the charge of the
Institution within fifteen days from today.

35. With the aforesaid directions,
the writ petition is allowed.
36.

Let
this
order
be
communicated to the District Inspector of
Schools,
Mathura
by
the
Registrar
(Compliance) within one week from today.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 1088
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ - C No. 33663 of 2007

The U.P.S.R.T.C. ...Petitioner
Versus
Hari Shankar Verma ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vivek Mishra, Ayush Mishra, Mukesh Kumar
Singh, Ramanuj Pandey, Sunil Kumar Misra

Counsel for the Respondent:
Dinesh Chandra Srivastava, Dr. Rajesh
Kumar Srivasta, Lalit Kumar, S.C.

A. Labour Law - U.P. Industrial Dispute
Act,1947 - Section 17-B - Mere quotation
of wrong provision of interim order will
not make the interim order redundant. An
order passed by competent court, interim
or final, has to be abided without any
reservation and if such order is violated,
the Court may refuse the party violating
such order to hear him on merit. (Para 16)

There is no dispute about the fact that Labour
Court vide impugned award reinstated the
respondent No. 1 in service with 50% of back
wages and other allowances from the date of
dismissal
of
service
upto
the
date
of
reinstatement in service withholding two annual
increments permanently. There is also no
dispute about the fact that this Court has
passed the conditional interim order dated 2607-2007 but petitioner has not reinstated the
respondent No. 1 who ultimately expired on 309-2015. Writ petition filed by petitioner is liable
8 All. The U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Hari Shankar Verma
1089
to be dismissed due to non-compliance of the
condition mentioned in the interim order. There
is also no dispute about the fact that petitioner
has filed modification application on 18-03-2021
in respect to the interim order dated 26- 072007 and 23-02-2021. (Para 13, 16)

There is no illegality in the impugned award.
(Para 15)

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, the writ petition is dismissed with
following direction:

i.
Petitioner shall release the arrears of
50% of back wages of deceasedrespondent
No.
1
in
favour
of
respondent No. 1/ 1 to 1/ 4 from the
date of termination (11-04-1991) to
the date of passing of interim order
dated 26-07-2007 within period of two
months from today.

ii.
Petitioner shall release the arrears of
full wages of deceased-respondent No.
1 from the date of passing of interim
order dated 26-07-2007 till the date of
his death (3- 09-2015) within period of
3 months from today.

iii.
In case of non-payment of arrears of
wages in aforementioned period, the
petitioner shall pay interest to the
respondent Nos. 1/1 to1/4 at the rate
of
6%
per
annum
on
the
aforementioned amount. (Para 17)

Writ petition dismissed with directions. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

Prestige Ltd. Vs S.B.I., (2007) 8 SCC 449 (Para
16)

Precedent cited:

1. Tufani Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ - C
No. 32426 of 2019 (Para 10)

2. M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs St.of U.P. &
ors., Writ - C No. 15450 of 2019, judgment
dated 18.01.2024 (Para 10)

3. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & anr.
Vs Mohan Singh & ors., Writ Petition No. 6444
of 2010, judgment dated 17.05.2023 (Para 10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Mishra,
learned Counsel for the petitioner and Dr.
Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel
for respondent No. 1/1 to 1/4.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
respondent No.1 was appointed on the post
of Conductor in the petitioner/Corporation
in
the
year
1980.
On
12-11-1988,
respondent No. 1 was driving bus number
USY-8753 on Khurja-Haridwar route. The
bus was checked and 12 passengers were
alleged to be found traveling without ticket
and in the checking made on 25-03-1989 in
the aforementioned bus and 4 passengers
were again alleged to be found traveling
without ticket. In disciplinary proceeding,
charge sheet was issued to respondent No.1
and reply was submitted by respondent
No.1. The Disciplinary Authority/ Regional
Manager vide order dated 14-04-1991
passed the order of removal of service of
respondent No.1. An industrial dispute
raised by respondent No.1 was referred for
adjudication vide reference order dated 2308-1993 as to whether the order of removal
of service of respondent No.1/Hari Shankar
Verma Conductor dated 11-04-1991 is just
and legal. The aforementioned reference
was registered as Adjudication Case
No.462 of 1993 before Labour Court (Ist)
U.P. Lohia Nagar, Ghaziabad. Petitioner/
employer and respondent No.1 filed their
written statement as well as oral and
documentary evidences in support of their
cases. Vide award dated 1-12-2006 as
published on 23-02-2007 reinstated the
respondent No.1 in service with 50% of
1090 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
back wages and other allowances from the
date of dismissal of service upto date of
reinstatement in service withholding two
annual increments permanently. Hence this
writ petition on behalf of petitioner for
following relief.

"(i) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned award/judgment
and order dated 21.03.2007 (Annexure 5
to the writ petition) in Adjudication Case
No.462 of 1993 passed by labour CourtI
Ghaziabad."

3. This court vide interim order dated
26-07-2007 entertained the matter and
stayed the execution of the impugned
award dated 1-12-2006 provided petitioner
ensure compliance of section 17-B of the
U.P. Industrial Dispute Act.

4. During pendency of the writ
petition, respondent No. 1/Hari Shankar
Verma
has
expired
on
3-9-2015
accordingly, two sons, widow and a
daughter
have
been
substituted
as
respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/4 respectively in
the writ petition.

5. A counter affidavit along with
application for vacation of interim order
was filed on behalf of respondent No.1/1 to
1/4 to the writ petition stating specifically
in paragraph No. 21 of the counter affidavit
that deceased respondent No.1 has filed an
application
for
his
joining
in
the
corporation in pursuance of the impugned
award of labour court as well as interim
order dated 26-07-2007 passed by this
court in the instant writ petition. The copy
of application for joining filed by deceasedrespondent No.1 before employer along
with
affidavit
stating
that
deceasedrespondent
No.1
was
not
in
any
employment is annexed as Annexure No.
CA-1 to the counter affidavit dated 2-122015.

6. No rejoinder affidavit has been
filed on behalf of petitioner to the counter
affidavit dated 2-12-2015.

7. This court dismissed the instant
writ petition for non-prosecution on 25-102017 but on restoration application of the
petitioner the order dated 25-10-2017 was
recalled vide order dated 27-05-2019.

8. This court on 23-02-2021 passed
another order which runs as follows.

"This Court while entertaining
the petition on 26.7.2007 has passed the
following order:

"Petitioner
is
permitted
to
implead Labour Court-I, U.P. Ghaziabad
through Presiding Officer as respondent
no.2 during the course of the day.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
represents respondent no.2 Sri D.C.
Srivastava, Advocaate has accepted notice
on behalf of respondent no.1. They pray
for and are granted three weeks time to
file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit
may be filed within a week thereafter.

List on 18th September, 2007.

It is contended that the workman
was employed as Conductor in U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation, Ghaziabad
and on two occasions he was caught
carrying bus with passengers, who were
travelling
without
ticket.
After
departmental proceedings, his service
were brought to an end. Orders passed by
the employers in that regard have been set
aside under the impugned award on hyper
technical ground without referring to
departmental
proceedings,
and
were
pleaded before the Labour Court.
8 All. The U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Hari Shankar Verma
1091

Petitioner has made out a prima
facie case for grant of an interim order.

Till the next date of listing
execution of the impugned award dated
1st
December,
2006
passed
in
Adjudication Case No.462 of 1993 shall
remain stayed provided the petitioner to
ensure compliance of Section 17-B of the
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act."

Nothing has been brought on
record as to whether Section 17-B of the
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act has been
complied with by the petitioner or not.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner at this stage seeks time to file
affidavit regarding compliance of the
order of this Court.

List this case on 24.3.2021 to
enable Regional Manager, UPSRTC to
file an affidavit showing compliance of
Section 17-B of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act.

It is made clear that in the event
of non compliance of the order dated
26.7.2007, the Court would take serious
view of the matter.

List this case on 18.3.2021."

9. In pursuance of the order dated 232-2021, petitioner/Employer filed a Civil
Miscellaneous Modification Application
No. 14 of 2021 dated 18-03-2021 for
modification of the interim order dated 2607-2007 as well as affidavit of compliance
of the order dated 23-02-2021. Respondent
No. 1/1 to 1/4 have filed their counter
affidavit to the modification application as
well as compliance affidavit filed by
petitioner/Employer.

10.

Learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioner/Corporation
submitted
that
respondent No.1 was habitual in carrying
the passenger without ticket but Labour
Court
has
illegally
ordered
for
reinstatement with 50% of back wages. He
further submitted that respondent No. 1 was
held guilty in the disciplinary proceeding
for carrying passengers without ticket but
Labour Court has illegally held that
Respondent No. 1 is to be reinstated in
service. He further submitted that Labour
Court has failed to consider the oral and
documentary evidence adduced by the
parties in support of their cases. He placed
following two judgments passed by this
Court in support of his argument.

1. Writ C No. 32426 of 2019

Tufani Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
and 2 others

With

Writ C No. 15450 of 2019
 M/S
Hindalco
Industries
Limited Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others

Judgment dated 18-01-2024

2. Writ Petition No. 6444 of
2010

U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation and another Vs. Mohan
Singh and others

Judgment dated 17-05-2023.

11. On the other hand, learned
counsel for respondent No. 1/1 to 1/4
submitted that respondent No. 1 was
performing his duty as conductor in the
U.P. Roadways since 1980. He submitted
that domestic inquiry was conducted
against the respondent No. 1 in illegal and
arbitrary manner accordingly, punishment
imposed against the respondent No. 1 was
also illegal. He submitted that Labour
Court has rightly exercised his jurisdiction
for reinstatement in service with 50% of
back wages, withholding two annual
increments permanently. He submitted that
in spite of the conditional interim order of
this Court, petitioner has not reinstated the
respondent No.1 since 26-07-2007 and
1092 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondent No.1 has expired also on 3-092015, as such writ petition filed by
petitioner is liable to be dismissed with
costs. He further submitted that deceasedrespondent No. 1 tried his best for joining
in pursuance of the impugned award but
petitioner have not reinstated the deceasedrespondent No. 1 in spite of the interim
order passed by this Court in the instant
petition filed by petitioner himself. He
submitted that Labour Court has passed the
impugned award in just and proper manner,
as such there is no illegality in the
impugned award even on merit.

12. I have considered the argument
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.

13. There is no dispute about the fact
that Labour Court vide impugned award
reinstated the respondent No. 1 in service
with 50% of back wages and other
allowances from the date of dismissal of
service upto the date of reinstatement in
service withholding two annual increments
permanently. There is also no dispute about
the fact that this Court has passed the
conditional interim order dated 26-07-2007
but petitioner has not reinstated the
respondent No. 1 who ultimately expired
on 3-09-2015. There is also no dispute
about the fact that petitioner has filed
modification application on 18-03-2021 in
respect to the interim order dated 26-072007 and 23-02-2021.

14. The perusal of the relevant
finding of fact recorded by Labour Court
while passing the impugned award will be
necessary which is as under:

"न्यायालय्‌ प्रर्थम्‌ उत्तर्‌ प्रदेश,्‌ र्ाण्जयाबाद
अभभननर्गय्‌ वििाद्‌ संख्या्‌ 462/93
मैं्‌ उत्तर्‌ प्रदेश्‌ राज्य्‌ सडक्‌ पररिहन्‌ ननर्म्‌
खुजाग्‌ दिारा्‌ सहायक्‌ क्षेिीय्‌ प्रबन्धक्‌ (2)्‌
मै0्‌
उ0प्र0्‌
राज्य्‌
सडक्‌
पररिहन्‌
ननर्म्‌
र्ाण्जयाबाद्‌
दिारा्‌
क्षेिीय्‌
प्रबन्धक्‌
तर्था्‌
उनके्‌ श्रभमक्‌ श्री्‌ हररशंकर्‌ िमाग्‌ पुि्‌ श्री्‌ र्ेंदा्‌
लाल्‌ ननिासी्‌ मोहमला्‌ सराय्‌ शेष्‌ आलम,्‌
खुजाग्‌ ण्जला्‌ बुलन्द्‌ शहर्‌ के्‌ मध्य्‌ उत्पन्न्‌
औदयोचर्क्‌ वििाद।
उपण्स्र्थनत
सािंत्‌
भसंह्‌
.............................................................
......्‌ पठासीन्‌ अचधकारी
पक्षकारों्‌ के्‌ प्रनतननचधयों्‌ के्‌ नाम
1.्‌
सेिायोजक्‌
पक्ष्‌
की्‌
ओर्‌
से्‌
.........................................्‌
श्री्‌
पी0िी0्‌
िमाग
2.्‌
श्रभमक्‌
पक्ष्‌
को्‌
जोर्‌
से्‌
................................................्‌
श्री्‌
सिेश्‌ कुमार
3.्‌ उदयोर्-पररिहन्‌ ननर्म
4.्‌ ण्जला-बुलन्दशहर
ददनांकः्‌ 01-12-04
अिािग

1.्‌
अपर्‌
सभायुक्त,्‌
र्ाण्जयाबाद्‌
के्‌
सन्दभभगत्‌
संख्या्‌
4262/67/र्ा0िा0्‌
(सन्दभग)्‌ सीपी0्‌ िाद्‌ संख्या्‌ 20/92्‌ ददनांक्‌
23/8/93्‌
के्‌
दिारा्‌
अभभननर्गय्‌
हेतु्‌
इस्‌
श्रम्‌
न्यायालय्‌
को्‌
प्रेवषत्‌
ककया्‌
र्या्‌
है्‌
औदयोचर्क्‌
वििाद्‌
का्‌
वििरर््‌
ननम्नित्‌
हैः-
8 All. The U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Hari Shankar Verma
1093
1.्‌
क्या्‌
सेिायोजको्‌
दिारा्‌
अपने्‌
श्रभमक्‌ श्री्‌ हररशंकर्‌ िमाग्‌ पुि्‌ र्ेंदा्‌ लाल्‌ पद्‌
पररिालक्‌ की्‌ सेिाये्‌ ददनांक्‌ 11-4-91्‌ से्‌
समापत्‌ ककया्‌ जाना्‌ उचित्‌ तर्था्‌ िैधाननक्‌
हेतु्‌ यदद्‌ नहीं्‌ तो्‌ संबंचधत्‌ श्रभमक्‌ ककस्‌ दहत्‌
लाभ/क्षनत्‌ पूनतग्‌ प्रापत्‌ करने्‌ का्‌ अचधकारी्‌
है,्‌ अन्य्‌ ककस्‌ वििरर््‌ सदहत।
.................................................
.................................................
.................................................
.....
.................................................
.................................................
................................................
12.्‌ श्रभमक्‌ श्री्‌ तरफ्‌ यह्‌ भी्‌ तकग्‌
प्रस्तुत्‌
ककया्‌
र्या्‌
है्‌
कक्‌
मय्‌
ददनांक्‌
12-11-88्‌
और्‌
25-3-89्‌
को्‌ बस्‌ को्‌ पेश्‌ ककया्‌ र्या्‌ उस्‌
समय्‌ यह्‌ ननयम्‌ र्था्‌ कक्‌ हर्‌ एक्‌
सिारी्‌ परर-िालक्‌ से्‌ उसकी्‌ सीट्‌
पर्‌
ही्‌
जाकर्‌
दटकट्‌
लेर्ी।्‌
ननरीक्षर््‌ के्‌ दौरान्‌ यह्‌ नहीं्‌ पाया्‌
र्या्‌
कक्‌
श्रभमक्‌
ने्‌
ककसी्‌
भी्‌
सिारी्‌ से्‌ पैसा्‌ ले्‌ भलया्‌ र्था्‌ और्‌
दटकट्‌ नहीं्‌ ददया्‌ र्था्‌ यह्‌ कक्‌ बस्‌
खतौली्‌ से्‌ र्थोडी्‌ दूर्‌ ही्‌ िली्‌ र्थी्‌
और्‌ बस्‌ को्‌ िेक्‌ कर्‌ भलया्‌ र्या्‌
र्था।्‌ ननरीक्षर्कतागओं्‌ ने्‌ त्रबना्‌ दटकट्‌
यािीयों्‌ के्‌ दटकट्‌ बना्‌ ददये्‌ र्थे्‌ और्‌
उनके्‌ दिारा्‌ धनराभश्‌ ननर्म्‌ कोष्‌
खतौली्‌ में्‌ जमा्‌ करा्‌ दी्‌ र्यी्‌ र्थी्‌
उस्‌ प्रकार्‌ कोई्‌ आचर्थगक्‌ हानन्‌ नहीं्‌
हुई्‌ है।्‌
श्रभमक्‌ की्‌ सेिा्‌ समाण्पत्‌
का्‌ आदेश्‌ प्रदशग्‌ ई-13्‌ बहुत्‌ ज्यादा्‌
कठोर्‌
है।्‌
न्यायालय्‌
दडिादेश्‌
प्रदशग-13्‌
को्‌
संसोधन्‌
करने्‌
में्‌
सक्षम्‌
है।्‌
पररिालक्‌
की्‌
सेिा्‌
समाण्पत्‌ उचित्‌ तर्था्‌ िैधाननक्‌ नहीं्‌
मानी्‌
जा्‌
सकती।्‌
इस्‌
संबंध्‌
में्‌
विचध्‌ व्यिस्र्था्‌ प्रस्तुत्‌ की्‌ र्यी्‌ हैः-
(1)्‌
एफ0एस0आर0्‌
19881571्‌
पृष्ट्‌
719्‌
(माननीय्‌
उछितम्‌
न्यायालय)
(2)्‌
एफ0एस0आर0्‌
19961721्‌
पेज्‌
41्‌
(मा0्‌
इला0्‌
उछि्‌
न्यायालय)
13-्‌
उपरोक्त्‌
तकग्‌
के्‌
खडिन्‌
में्‌
सेिायोजक्‌ पक्ष्‌ की्‌ तरफ्‌ से्‌ यह्‌
तकग्‌
प्रस्तुत्‌ ककया्‌ र्या्‌ है्‌ कक्‌ यह्‌
पररिालक्‌
का्‌
कतगव्य्‌
र्था्‌
कक्‌
खतौली्‌
से्‌
बस्‌
को्‌
तभी्‌
आर्े्‌
िलाना्‌
िादहए्‌
र्था्‌
जब्‌
सारी्‌
सिाररयों्‌ की्‌ दटकट्‌ बना्‌ दी्‌ होती।्‌
श्रभमक्‌ का्‌ इरादा्‌ यात्रियों्‌ को्‌ त्रबना्‌
दटकट्‌ ले्‌ जाने्‌ का्‌ र्था्‌ और्‌ अर्र्‌
बस्‌
िेक्‌
नहीं्‌
होती्‌
तब्‌
श्रभमक्‌
त्रबना्‌ दटकट्‌ यात्रियों्‌ से्‌ पैसा्‌ लेकर्‌
अपने्‌ पास्‌ रख्‌ सकता्‌ र्था्‌ और्‌ इस्‌
प्रकार्‌
ननर्म्‌
को्‌
आचर्थगक्‌
हानन्‌
पहुाँिायी्‌ जा्‌ सकती्‌ र्थी।्‌ श्रभमक्‌ की्‌
सेिा्‌ समाण्पत्‌ उचित्‌ है्‌ और्‌ सन्दभग्‌
ननरस्त्‌ ककये्‌ जाने्‌ योग्य्‌ है।्‌ इस्‌
1094 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
संबंध्‌
में्‌
ननम्न्‌
विचध्‌
व्यिस्र्था्‌
प्रस्तुत्‌ की्‌ र्यी्‌ हैः-
(1)्‌
1998्‌
सुप्रमी्‌
कोटग्‌
केसेज्‌ (एल्‌ एडि्‌ एस)्‌ पेज्‌ 11941्‌
मा0्‌
इला0्‌
उछि्‌
न्यायालय।्‌
उपरोक्त्‌
विचध्‌
व्यिस्र्था्‌ का्‌ लाभ्‌
सेिायोजक्‌ पक्ष्‌ को्‌ नहीं्‌ पहुाँिता्‌ है्‌
क्योंकक्‌ उपरोक्त्‌ विचध्‌ व्यिस्र्था्‌ में्‌
ददये्‌
र्ये्‌
तथ्य्‌
प्रस्तुत्‌
संदभग्‌
में्‌
ददये्‌
र्ये्‌
तथ्यों्‌
से्‌
भभन्न्‌
है।्‌
प्रस्तुत्‌ विचध्‌ व्यिस्र्था्‌ के्‌ अनुसार्‌
श्रभमक्‌ की्‌ एक्‌ बार्‌ पहले्‌ भी्‌ सेिा्‌
समापत्‌ की्‌ र्यी्‌ र्थी्‌ और्‌ उसे्‌ पुनः्‌
सेिा्‌ में्‌ भलया्‌ र्या्‌ र्था्‌ और्‌ बाद्‌ में्‌
श्रभमक्‌ को्‌ पुनः्‌ सेिा्‌ से्‌ पृर्थक्‌ कर्‌
ददया्‌
र्या्‌
र्था।्‌
इस्‌
प्रकार्‌
पुनः्‌
सेिा्‌ समाण्पत्‌ को्‌ माननीय्‌ उछितम्‌
न्यायालय्‌ ने्‌ उचित्‌ ठहराया्‌ र्था।
14.्‌
पिािली्‌
पर्‌
उपलब्ध्‌
साक्ष्य्‌
एिं्‌
प्रनतननचधयों्‌ के्‌ तकों्‌ को्‌ ध्यान्‌ रखते्‌ हुए्‌ िे्‌
इसी्‌ ननष्कषग्‌ पर्‌ पहुाँिता्‌ हूाँ्‌ कक्‌ श्रभम्‌ से्‌
विरूदध्‌
पाररत्‌ दडिादेश्‌ प्रदशग-13्‌ एकदम्‌
कठोर्‌
है।्‌
दडिादेश्‌
संशोचधत्‌
ककये्‌
जाने्‌
योग्य्‌ है।्‌ श्रभमक्‌ की्‌ ददनांक्‌ 11.4.91्‌ से्‌
सेिा्‌ समाण्पत्‌ उचित्‌ तर्था्‌ िैधाननक्‌ नहीं्‌ है।्‌
प्रस्तुत्‌ संदभग्‌ की्‌ िाब्दा्‌ यही्‌ ननर्ीत्‌ ककया्‌
जाता्‌ है्‌ कक्‌ दडिादेश्‌ प्रदशग्‌ ई-13्‌ संशोचधत्‌
ककया्‌ जाता्‌ है।्‌ श्रभमक्‌ की्‌ पुरानी्‌ सेिा्‌ के्‌
क्रम्‌
में्‌
बहाल्‌
ककया्‌
जाये।्‌
श्रभमक्‌
की्‌
केिल्‌ दो्‌ िावषगक्‌ िेतन्‌ िृदचध्‌ स्र्थायी्‌ तौर्‌
पर्‌ रोक्‌ ली्‌ जाये।्‌ श्रभमक्‌्‌
के्‌ केिल्‌ दो्‌
िावषगक्‌ िेतन्‌ िृदचध्‌ स्र्थायी्‌ तौर्‌ पर्‌ रोक्‌
ली्‌ जाये।्‌ श्रभमक्‌ सेिा्‌ समाण्पत्‌ की्‌ नतचर्थ्‌
से्‌ सेिा्‌ में्‌ बहाल्‌ ककये्‌ जाने्‌ की्‌ अिचध्‌ का्‌
िेतन्‌ तर्था्‌ अन्य्‌ भत्तों्‌ का्‌ केिल्‌ 50% ्‌ पाने्‌
का्‌ अचधकारी्‌ होर्ा।
0अप0
1.12.06
(सािंत्‌ भसंह)
पीठासीन्‌ अचधकारी।"

15. Perusal of the finding of fact
recorded by Labour Court as quoted above
fully demonstrate that there is no illegality
in the impugned award.

16. It is also material that in spite of
the interim order dated 26-07-2007 passed
by this Court in the instant petition filed by
petitioner themselves, the petitioner has not
reinstated the respondent No. 1 in service
and respondent No. 1 has expired on 3-92015, as such, writ petition filed by
petitioner is also liable to be dismissed due
to
non-compliance
of
the
condition
mentioned in the interim order. Mere
quotation of wrong provision of interim
order will not make the interim order
redundant. Hon. Apex Court in case
reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449 Prestige
Ltd. v. State Bank of India has held that
an order passed by competent court, interim
or final, has to be abided without any
reservation and if such order is violated, the
Court may refuse the party violating such
order to hear him on merit.

17. Considering the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case to the effect
that respondent No. 1 was not reinstated in
service in spite of the interim order dated
26-07-2007 passed in the instant petition
8 All. State of U.P. Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & Anr.
1095
and ultimately respondent No. 1 has
expired on 3-09-2015, the writ petition is
dismissed with following direction:

(i). Petitioner shall release the
arrears of 50% of back wages of deceasedrespondent No. 1 in favour of respondent
No. 1/ 1 to 1/ 4 from the date of termination
(11-04-1991) to the date of passing of
interim order dated 26-07-2007 within
period of two months from today.

(ii). Petitioner shall release the
arrears
of
full
wages
of
deceasedrespondent No. 1 from the date of passing
of interim order dated 26-07-2007 till the
date of his death (3-09-2015) within period
of 3 months from today.

(iii). In case of non-payment of
arrears of wages in aforementioned period,
the petitioner shall pay interest to the
respondent Nos. 1/1 to1/4 at the rate of 6%
per annum on the aforementioned amount.

18. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 1095
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ - C No. 36298 of 2016

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer Labour Court & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Bushra
Maryam,
Shekhar
Srivastav,
Shekhar Srivastava
A.
Labour
Law
-
Retrenchment/
Termination - U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 - Section 6-N - It is settled law that
the burden of proof of the existence of a
particular fact lies on the person who
makes a positive averments about its
existence. It is always easier to prove a
positive fact than to prove a negative fact.
Therefore, once the employee shows that
he was not employed, the onus lies on the
employer to specifically plead and prove
that the employee was gainfully employed
and was getting the same or substantially
similar emoluments. (Para 13)

Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose
services are terminated and who is desirous of
getting back wages is required to either plead or
at
least
make
a
statement
before
the
adjudicating authority or the Court of first
instance that he/she was not gainfully employed
or was employed on lesser wages. If the
employer wants to avoid payment of full back
wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent
evidence to prove that the employee/workman
was gainfully employed and was getting wages
equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to
the termination of service.

The perusal of finding of facts recorded by the
Labour
Court
on
all
the
issues
fully
demonstrates that respondent No.2/workman
was appointed in the petitioner-department and
worked
up
to
28.9.1998.
And
further
demonstrate that petitioner-department is
Industry
and
there
was
relation
of
employer and employee between the
petitioner and respondent No.2/workman
who has worked for more than 240 days in
the Calendar Year, as such, the services
cannot be terminated without compliance
of the provisions contained under U.P.
Industrial
Disputes
Act.
Respondent
No.2/workman was not in any gainful
employment
after
termination
of
his
service, as such, the Labour Court has rightly
reinstated the petitioner in service and awarded
50% of the backwages from the date of
termination till the date of reinstatement of
service. (Para 13)

Writ petition dismissed. Awarded arrears
of 50% of backwages. (E-4)