1. This order will decide OWP Nos. 792/2014, 793/2014, 794/2014, 795/2014, 796/2014, 894/2014, 895/2014, 896/2014, 897/2014, 898/2014, 899/2014, 900/2014, 901/2014, 902/2014, 903/2014, 904/2014, 905/2014, 906/2014 907/2014, 908/2014, 909/2014, 910/2014 & 911/2014 as identical point for determination is involved in all the writ petitions.

2. At the very outset, it needs mention that on 3rd February 2016, learned counsel for the petitioners requested for the cases to be kept on board for 4th February, 2016 in order to enable him to make submissions. Acceding to the request, the cases were adjourned to 4th February 2016. However, on 4th February, 2016, learned counsel for the petitioner did not put in appearance despite the cases having been called out in the pre-lunch as well as post lunch session. In the interest of justice, the cases were kept on board for 5th February, 2016 to be taken up for hearing at Sr. No. 1 while making it clear in the order that in case of non-representation on behalf of the petitioner on 5th February, 2016, the cases would be considered on the basis of submissions by learned counsel for the respondents as well as material on record. On 5th February 2016, when the cases were called out for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner again did not put in appearance. In the circumstances, arguments of learned counsel for the respondent workmen were heard and orders passed dismissing the writ petitions with costs of Rs. 5000/- in each case.

3. However, before the orders could be signed, learned counsel for the petitioners appeared and stated that he had not been able to appear due to circumstances beyond his control and requested that he be given an opportunity of hearing. In the interest of justice, the cases were listed for re-hearing for February 12, 2016 on which date both learned counsel were heard but the matter was again listed for February 16, 2016 in order to enable learned counsel for the respondent workmen to address concluding arguments qua OWP No. 894/2014 and 908/2014.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that vide office Order No. 82 of 2008, dated July 10, 2008 the J&K Service (Leave) Rules were made applicable by the petitioner Corporation to its employees w.e.f. April 1, 2008, that no doubt in terms thereof, the respondent workmen were entitled to 300 days earned leave salary encashment as against the earlier entitlement of 120 days earned leave encashment as per leave rules of J&KPCC Ltd. but as per the decision, cases already settled after April 1, 2008 till date of issuance of orders i.e. July 10,2008 were not to be re-opened, secondly, respondent workmen having been paid 120 days earned leave encashment on retirement, could not have made a claim thereafter, thirdly, the petitioner Corporation was paying dues to its employees out of its own resources and had no budgetary support of the State or Central Government, lastly, the application before the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court was hit by delay, therefore ought to have been dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent workmen on the other hand reiterated his submissions that the grievance of the respondent workmen leading to passing of the impugned order was that prior to April 1, 2008, earned leave salary admissible to an employee of the petitioner Corporation on retirement was 120 days but a decision was taken by the petitioner Corporation on July 10,2008 that with effect from April 1,2008, leave rules as applicable to State Government employees were made applicable to the employees of the petitioner Corporation in terms of which the respondent workmen were entitled to 300 days earned leave salary encashment on retirement. Learned counsel contended that the respondent workmen in all the writ petitions had retired after April 1,2008, consequently were entitled to payment of 300 days earned leave salary encashment instead of 120 days as was the position prevailing prior to April 1, 2008. He contended that in