U.P.S.R.T.C. THORUGH REGINAL MANAGERversusPRESIDING OFFICER ADDL. LABOUR COMMISSIONER U.P. AND 3 ORS.

               HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                               WRIT - C No. - 24689 of 2015

U.P.S.R.T.C. Thorugh Reginal Manager
                                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                              Versus

Presiding Officer Addl. Labour Commissioner U.P. And 3
Ors.
                                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                 :   S.K. Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)                 :   Aalok Kumar Srivastava, C.S.C., Hanuman
                                              Prasad Dube, Vipul Dube

Court No. - 36
                  HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Heard Sri Ayush Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri H.P. Dube, learned

Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Aalok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for

contesting-respondent.

2. It is not under much dispute that contesting-respondent was terminated on
05.09.1987 from the post of Conductor by petitioner. An industrial dispute was

referred and finally Labour Court vide an award dated 01.11.1999 held that

termination was bad in law and following direction was passed:

      "15. मैं पंचाट पारित करता हूँ कि श्रमिक को सेवा से मुक्त किया जाना अवैधानिक और
      अनुचित है। श्रमिक को पुनः उसी पद तारतम्यता सहित और समस्त बकाया देयों के साथ सेवा
      में रखा जाये और प्रवादी रू० 200/- वाद व्यय वादी को देंगे।"


3. Aforesaid award was challenged at behest petitioner by way of filing Writ C Nos.

36487 of 2000 and 29051 of 2006. Said writ petitions were finally disposed of vide

order dated 05.11.2012 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:

      "I do not fully agree with the finding of the labour court. Firstly when no
      party had led any evidence, domestic inquiry could not be held to be
      unfair. No presumption of unfairness can be attached with domestic
      inquiry. If the workman asserts that the domestic inquiry was not fair
      burden is upon him to prove the same.
      Secondly, both the parties were at fault for not adducing any evidence
      before the labour court.
                                                                         WRIC No. 24689 of 2015
                                         2

      In any case, in my opinion under no circumstances more than 50%
      backwages could be awarded.

      Even though in normal course matter would have required remand,
      however, at this late stage I do not consider it appropriate to adopt the
      said course. Workman must be 55 years of age at present as per his age
      given in the counter affidavit filed in the first writ petition. Writ
      jurisdiction is discretionary and some time even if the order challenged
      suffers from illegality still in the interest of the justice writ Court can
      refuse to exercise the jurisdiction and set aside the impugned order.

      Accordingly, the order of reinstatement passed by the labour court is not
      set aside. Out of the deposited amount workman as is stated to have
      recovered 50% of the same. It is directed that no further amount shall be
      payable to the workman as backages. The remaining 50% amount which
      is still in deposit shall at once be returned to the petitioner with the
      interest which may have actually accrued thereupon if the same was kept
      in some interest bearing account. However, if the remaining 50% of the
      deposited amount has also been recovered by the workman after
      furnishing security in terms of stay order dated 23.5.2006 passed in
      Second writ petition then an application may be filed in these writ
      petitions for suitable modification of this judgment.

      Both the writ petitions are accordingly, disposed of."


4. Contesting-respondent was allowed to re-join on 01.07.2001 and 50% of amount

deposited with Labour Court was paid to contesting respondent alongwith due interest.

Contesting-respondent initiated a proceeding under Section 6-H(1) of U.P. Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 for recovery of amount of Rs. 9,59,423/- that his salary on re-

joining was fixed on lower scale.


5. A copy of application is on record. The contents of it does not based on any

determination by petitioner though a chart is prepared essentially on ground that

according to contesting-respondent his salary has to be fixed on higher pay scale on

basis of averments mentioned in paras 15, 18, 19 and 20 of the application, though are

not very specific. said paragraphs are reproduced hereinafter:


      "15. यह कि प्रार्थी ने जो आर० डी० विवाद प्रस्तुत किया था उसमें सेवायोजको द्वारा एक चार्ट
      प्रस्तुत किया गया था जिसमें 950 का स्के ल लागू करते हुये वर्ष 96 मे 3425/- मूल वेतन पर
                                                                           WRIC No. 24689 of 2015
                                           3

      फिक्शेसन किया गया और 2000 में 3725/- का वेतन फिक्स किया गया और यह वेतनदर
      प्रार्थी को प्राप्त हो चुका है।

      18. यह कि यही प्रतिवादी प्रतिष्ठान में यह भी व्यवस्था रही है कि जो कर्मचारी अपनी 10 वर्ष
      की सेवा पूरी कर लेता है उसे 10 साला बाद वेतनमान एवं 20 साल सेवा करने का 20 साला
      उच्च वेतनमान दिया जाता है और वर्तमान समय में ए०सी०पी० की भी सुविधा कार्यरत
      कर्मचारियों को दी जा रही है जिसका भी लाभ प्रार्थी को नही दिया जा रहा है जिसका कि वह
      पाने का अधिकारी है।

      19. यह कि प्रार्थी का स्थानान्तरण गढमुक्ते श्वर से गोरखपुर डिपो में दिनांक 20.08.04 द्वारा
      किया गया जहाँ पर दिनांक 15.09.04 को कार्यभार ग्रहण किया और तब से प्रार्थी लगातार
      कार्य करता चला आ रहा था प्रार्थी को पुनः सेवायोजको द्वारा दिनांक 12.7.12 से बुकिंग
      क्लर्क के पद पर पदोन्नति करके गोरखपुर डिपो में कार्य लिया जा रहा है जहां प्रार्थी कार्यरत
      है।

      20. यह कि प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 15.09.04 से लेकर 30.04.13 तक की अवधि में जो वेतन प्राप्त
      किया है उसका विवरण तथा सेवायोजक द्वारा जो 3050 रू० का स्के ल लागू किया गया जबकि
      उसके पूर्व 2000 में ही प्रार्थी का स्के ल 3725 था ऐसी दशा में प्रार्थी अन्तर वेतन की धनराशि
      पाने का पूर्ण अधिकारी है।"


6. Petitioner has filed objection to said application and denied calculation in entirety.

Even it was stated that in case of any discrepancy in fixation of salary occur that will

be calculated. For reference para 11 and 12 of reply filed by petitioner, being relevant,

are reproduced hereinafter:

      "11. यह कि वाद पत्र का पैरा 20 असत्य, निराधार व भ्रामक है अतः अस्वीकार है। वादी को
      माननीय न्यायालय के आदेशानुसार ज्वाइन करा लिया गया और उसके पद के अनुसार स्के ल
      में निर्धारण कर वेतन व अन्य पावनों का भुगतान किया गया है। वादी के वेतन निर्धारण व अन्य
      पावनों का भुगतान जो किाय गया है उसके सम्बन्ध में प्रतिवादी द्वारा समीक्षा व छानबीन की
      जा रही है यदि वादी का कोई पावना या अन्तर पावना शेष पाया जायेगा तो नियमानुसार उसके
      भुगतान की कार्यवाही की जायेगी।

      12. यह कि वाद पत्र का पैरा २ व चार्ट असत्य, निराधार, भ्रामक, मनमाना व कानून विरूद्ध है
      जिसे प्रतिवादी अस्वीकार करता है। कथित चार्ट में वादी ने अपना वेतन दर आदि मनमानी
      तरीके से बढ़ा चढ़ा कर प्रस्तुत किया है।"


7. Labour Court vide an order dated 31.01.2015 determined the amount towards

arrears as per the chart given by contesting-respondent, i.e., Rs. 9,59,423/-.


8. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that when award was challenged before this

Court, it was modified to the extent that order of reinstatement was not interfered and
                                                                                                     WRIC No. 24689 of 2015
                                                                         4


                                    so far as backwages are concerned, it was limited to 50% of amount already deposited

                                    and admittedly said 50% amount has already been paid to contesting-respondent. The

                                    relevant part of said order is already reproduced in para 2 of this order.


                                    9. The claim set up by contesting-respondent was essentially based on alleged

                                    irregularity in determination of due pay scale and it was disputed by petitioner, i.e.,

                                    Employer. It is well settled that when demand was disputed, no order can be passed

                                    under Section 6-H(1) of Act. The Court also takes note that during pendency of

                                    proceedings salary of contesting-respondent was fixed by an office order dated

                                    29.10.2013, however, it not on record, whether said document was placed before

                                    Labour Court or calculation made by contesting-respondent was entirely based on that

                                    document. It is also not on record, whether said document was completely relied by

                                    petitioner or not.


                                    10. In aforesaid circumstances and in the light of a judgment passed by this Court in

                                    the case of Abhai Pratap Singh and another vs. State of U.P. and others,
                                    2019:AHC:86649 since calculation was highly disputed, therefore, order impugned

                                    cannot be sustained. Accordingly, impugned order dated 31.01.2015 is set aside and

                                    matter is remitted to Labour Court to pass a fresh order.


                                    11. On remand, the Labour Court will consider, whether document placed by

                                    petitioner, i.e., determination of salary by office order dated 29.10.2013 is an admitted

                                    position or not. If is so, then further proceedings can take place in accordance with

                                    law. The Labour Court will take all endeavour to conclude proceedings preferably

                                    within a period of six months from today. Fresh determination of Labour Court will be

                                    based on pleadings including objection, if any, by petitioner on maintainability.


                                    12. With aforesaid observations, directions and liberty, this writ petition is disposed

                                    of.
                                    September 23, 2026
                                    AK
                                                                                           (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad