# U.P.S.R.T.C v. The State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 645
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-07-22
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-s-r-t-c-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-others-41071
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947-Section
6-B(2)-Compromise between workman
and
employer-outside
the
Court-not
registered-objection by the employer
that
acting
upon
the
terms
of
compromise workman was reinstated
with condition he will not claim past
wages-held-misconceived-unregistered
compromise-not enforceable.

Held: Para 19

In my opinion, the Labour Court has
rightly allowed the application of the
workman under Section 33-C(2) of the
Act holding that such an agreement out
side the conciliation proceedings is not
enforceable in law in State of U.P.
without it being registered under the
provisions of Section 6-B (2) of the U. P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It appears
that the workman was reinstated in
service in terms of the award and not in
terms of the agreement.

## Text

2 All] U.P.S.R.T.C. V. The State of U.P. and others
645
versus Ashok Kumar Tiwari and others,
Crime No. C-131/07, u/s 498-A, 304-B
and 201 IPC and section 3⁄4 D.P. Act, P.S.
Sahatwar, district Ballia is not quashed,
then the bail prayer of the applicants be
directed to be considered if possible on
the same day.

27. Looking to the facts of the case,
I hereby direct that in case the applicants
appears before the court concerned and
move an application for their bail, the
same is directed to be considered as
expeditiously
as
possible
without
unreasonable delay and in the case of lady
applicants the bail prayer shall be
considered if possible on the same day

28. With the aforesaid direction this
application stands dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.07.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition 19305 of 1988

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation

...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & others...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri. Sameer Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.
U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947-Section
6-B(2)-Compromise between workman
and
employer-outside
the
Court-not
registered-objection by the employer
that
acting
upon
the
terms
of
compromise workman was reinstated
with condition he will not claim past
wages-held-misconceived-unregistered
compromise-not enforceable.

Held: Para 19

In my opinion, the Labour Court has
rightly allowed the application of the
workman under Section 33-C(2) of the
Act holding that such an agreement out
side the conciliation proceedings is not
enforceable in law in State of U.P.
without it being registered under the
provisions of Section 6-B (2) of the U. P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It appears
that the workman was reinstated in
service in terms of the award and not in
terms of the agreement.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

2. Respondent no.3 was appointed as
Carpenter on temporary post on 2.6.1977
in Gorakhpur Region. Subsequently on
26.7.1978 he was transferred from Bird
Ghat Depot, Gorakhpur Region to Dohri
Ghat Depot of Azamgarh Depot. He was
placed under suspension by order dated
28.7.1978 on misconduct and a charge
sheet dated 2.8.1978 was also issued to
the
petitioner.
After
enquiry
the
authorities reinstated the workman in
service with warning and forfeiture of
salary for suspension period except for
suspension allowance by an order dated
16.11. 1978.

3. On 19.12.1979 a report was
submitted by Sri Hardeo Ram, Chaukidar
that he caught the workman along with
Sri Dudh Nath Carpenter carrying 11
aluminum foils weighing 2-3 kgs. The
workman was placed under suspension by
an order dated 2.1.1980 and a chargesheet
dated 29.1.1980 was also served on him.
646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
He filed reply thereto on 1.2.1980. After
holding an enquiry the petitioner issued
show cause notice dated 21.3.1980 to the
workman
concerned along with an
enquiry report. Thereafter the workman
was removed from service by order dated
10.4.1980. In so far as Sri Dudh Ram is
concerned, he was permitted to serve the
department again.

4. The workman raised an industrial
dispute before the Regional Conciliation
Officer but no settlement could be arrived
at and a report was submitted to the State
Government by him and following matter
of dispute was referred to the Labour
Court, Gorakhpur where it was registered
as Adjudication Case No. 145 of 1982.

"D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed esok yky 'kekZ
iq= Jh ';ke nqykjs 'kekZ dks fnukad 10.4.80 ls lsok;sa
lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@ vFkok oS/kkfud gSA ;fn ugha
rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k ykHk@vuqrks"k@fjyhQ ikus dk
vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr\"

5. Written statement and rejoinder
statement on behalf of respondent no.3 as
also
on
behalf
of
the
petitioner
Corporation were filed before the Labour
Court. The Corporation also filed 17
documents before the Labour Court to
prove that the order of removal had been
passed in accordance with law. After
hearing the parties, the Labour Court
decided the following preliminary issues
against the Corporation.

(a) That since no demand had been
made the reference itself was bad and the
Labour Court had no jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon the matter.

(b) That .the order of reference was
bad as the workman was removed from
service by an order dated 10.4.1980 and
not with effect from 10.4.1980.

6. The Labour Court by its award
dated 22.10.1984 after perusing the
evidence on record has recorded a finding
that the charges of theft stood proved
against respondent no.3. However, the
Labour Court on an erroneous assumption
that the case of respondent no.3 and Sri
Dudh
Nath
was
similar
in nature
exercised powers under Section 6(2-A) of
the Act and directed reinstatement with
effect from 1.1.1981 as fresh appointment
without past benefits. The petitioner
Corporation thereafter filed Writ Petition
No. 8586 of 1985 before this Court
challenging
the
said
award
dated
19.3.1985 but the award was not
implemented by the Corporation.

7. During the pendency of Writ
Petition no. 8586 of 1985 respondent no.3
moved an application under Section 33-C
(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 claiming Rs. 5868/- as the amount
due under the award. The aforesaid
application
of
the
workman
was
registered as Misc. Case No. 63 of 1985.
The Labour Court decreed the claim of
the workman for the aforesaid amount
claimed by him.

8. Respondent no.3 also moved an
application
on
5.3.1986
before
the
Regional Manager, U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation, Azmagarh praying
that
in
case
he
was
given fresh
appointment, he would not claim the
benefit of seniority or any other benefit
including Rs.5868/- as directed under the
impugned award.

9. It appears that on that basis an
agreement was entered into between the
workman
and
the
Management
on
15.7.86/19.7.86 and the workman was
2 All] U.P.S.R.T.C. V. The State of U.P. and others
647
given fresh appointment. He has now
retired from service.

10. The grievance of the petitioner is
that inspite of the fact that the workman
had entered into an agreement with the
Management and had been given fresh
appointment as per award, he moved an
application under Section 33-C(2) of the
Act claiming past wages from 1.7.1985 to
1.5.1986 amounting to Rs. 8118/-. This
application was registered as Misc. Case
No. 140 of 1986 before the Labour Court.

11. It was pointed out on behalf of
the Corporation that on the basis of
agreement entered into between the
workman and the Management that he
would not claim past benefits and wages,
he had been given fresh appointment and
as such he was stopped from claiming
past wages. The Labour Court, however,
by order dated 30.9.1987 has awarded Rs.
8118/- as claimed by the workman as past
wages due to him for the aforesaid period
1.7. 1985 to 1.5. 1986.

12. It appears from the averments
made in the writ petition that another
application was moved by the workman
before the Labour Court on 15.12.1987
claiming that the amount be recovered as
arrears of land revenue and accordingly
an application for amendment of the writ
petition and for amendment of the relief
was filed on behalf of the Corporation in
the aforesaid writ petition no. 8586 of
1985 on 3.8.1988. The application of the
petitioner Corporation was rejected on the
ground that the writ petition had become
infructuous and the award had been
complied with as the workman had been
reinstated in service. In so far as the
amendment application was concerned it
was a separate cause of action for which a
fresh writ petition may be filed, hence the
Corporation wanted to challenge the
same. In these backdrops this writ petition
has been filed before this Court.

13. The contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that in view of
the agreement entered into between the
parties, the application under Section 33C(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act
was not maintainable and the Labour
Court has committed an error in decreeing
the claim for Rs.8118/-in as much as
respondent no.3 was bound by the terms
of the agreement and was stopped from
making a claim in respect of the period
for which he had agreed not to claim any
past wages.

14. He submits that the proceedings
under Section 33-C (2) of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act were in the nature
of an execution proceedings and there was
no existing right of the workman to claim
the past wages under Section 33-C(2) in
view of the agreement entered into
between the parties, hence he was not
entitled to any past wages till the date of
his reinstatement.

15. It is lastly submitted that the
terms of the agreement could only be
interpreted by the Labour Court on a
reference being made to it under Section
4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act
(Section 10 of the Central Industrial
Disputes Act) and it could not arrogate to
itself the functions of a Labour Court in
exercise of powers under Section 33-C(2)
of the Industrial Disputes Act.

16. The Standing counsel appearing
for
the
respondents
submits
that
admittedly the award was given in favour
of the workman which had directed
648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
reinstatement with continuity of service
and full back wages to the workman as
such he is entitled to the wages as claimed
by him from the date of the award and
that the Labour Court has therefore, not
committed an illegality in allowing the
application of the workman under Section
33-C(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. He states that the claim of the
workman was based upon an application
under Section 4-K of the Act, hence no
fresh application is required under the Act
for entering into the terms of the
agreement.

17. On a specific query made by the
Court from learned counsel for the
petitioner as to whether agreement said to
have been entered into between the
workman
and the Corporation was
registered under the provisions of Section
6-B (2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 or not? he has very fairly stated
that it does not appear true from the
record. In so far as the agreement entered
into between the workman and the
Corporation
outside
conciliation
proceedings is concerned, it must be
registered under the provisions of Section
6-B(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. Since the agreement was no
registered in the prescribed manner as
provided under Section 6-B(2) of the Act
it does not help the case of the petitioner
being not in accordance with law.

18. If things are to be done in a
certain manner, it must be done in that
manner. Therefore, the agreement entered
into the parties outside conciliation
proceedings ought to have been registered
under the provisions of Section 6-B(2) of
the Act. Since the employers have failed
to get the agreement registered under the
provisions of Section 6-B(2) of the Act,
they can not get benefit of it.

19. In my opinion, the Labour Court
has rightly allowed the application of the
workman under Section 33-C(2) of the
Act holding that such an agreement out
side the conciliation proceedings is not
enforceable in law in State of U.P.
without it being registered under the
provisions of Section 6-B (2) of the U. P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It appears
that the workman was reinstated in
service in terms of the award and not in
terms of the agreement.

20. For all the reasons stated above,
the writ petition is dismissed. No order as
to costs.

21. The Corporation shall pay wages
to the workman under Section 33-C(2) of
the Act within a period of two months
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order. Petition Dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.05.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 24354 of
2007

Smt. Geeta and others
...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri O.P. Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri V.P. Mishra
A.G.A.