SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(All) 3893

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Raghvendra Kumar, J.
Shiv Naresh Mishra - Appellant
Versus
U.P. P. C. L. Lucknow and 3 Others - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 830 of 2016
Decided On : 23-11-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :- Rakesh Pande

The absolute and unqualified prohibition under Section 6 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 renders suits arising out of service matters or benefits not maintainable in the civil court.

Headnote:

Interest - Employment Dispute - U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976, Section 1, Section 4, Section 6

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a retired employee, sought interest on belated post-retiral dues payment. The lower courts dismissed the suit citing the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the suit was not maintainable in the civil court due to the absolute and unqualified prohibition under Section 6 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976.

Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the suit in the civil court under the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prohibition under Section 6 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 was absolute and unqualified, leading to the dismissal of the suit.

Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed due to lack of merits.

JUDGMENT

Raghvendra Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Pande, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was an employee of respondent no.4 and was working on the post of Clerk B-Stores and he was superannuated on 31.1.2000. Further submission is that all the post retiral dues have been paid to the appellant, but payment has been made belatedly, therefore, the appellant preferred an original suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shahjahanpur against the present respondents for recovery of the interest accrued in favour of the appellant by virtue of belated payments. The details of which has been disclosed at page 65 of the paper book of the appeal, which is part of the plaint.

3. It has further been submitted that the learned Courts below have erred in recording the finding that the suit was not cognizable in view of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal Act 1976 and after framing the issue on the point of maintainability, learned trial Court dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court vide order dated 15.3.2016 affirmed the judgment and findings recorded by the learned trial Court.

4. The controversy is confined to the fact whether any interest is chargeable on the delayed payment as alleged in table at page 65.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was the contractual obligation of the employer to make the timely payment of the amounts in the heads disclosed in the table at page 65. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the case of The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Krishna Kant and others reported in 1995 (71) FLR wherein it has been propounded that where the dispute arises from general law of contract, i.e., where reliefs are claimed on the basis of the general law of contract, a suit filed in civil court cannot be said to be not maintainable, even though such a dispute may also constitute an "industrial dispute" within the meaning of Section 2 (k) or Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

6. The U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 has been legislated by the Legislature with a view to establish Public Services Tribunal to deal with the cases pertaining to the employment matters of the govenrment servants and also of the employees of local authorities and government corporations and companies so that employees may get quick and inexpensive justice.

7. Section 1 of The U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 deals with the short title, extent, commencement and application. The relevant Section (4) is being extracted hereinbelow : -

"(4) This section and Sections 2 and 6 shall apply in relation to all public servants while the remaining provisions shall not apply to the following classes of public servants, namely -

(a) a member of a judicial service;

(b) an officer or servant of the High Court or of a court subordinate to the High Court;

(c) a member of the secretariat staff of any House of the State Legislature ;

(d) a member of the staff of the State Public Service Commission;

(e) a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."

8. Section 6 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 deals with the bar of suits, which is also being extracted hereinbelow : -

"6. Bar of suits.-(1) No suit shall lie against the State Government or any local authority or any statutory corporation or company for any relief in respect of any matter relating to employment at the instance of any person who is or has been a public servant, including a person specified in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (4) of Section 1.

(2) All suits for the like relief, and all appels, revisions, applications for review and other incidental or ancillary proceedings (including all proceedings under Order XXXIX of the first schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) (Act V of 1908), arising out of such suits, and all applications for permission to sue or appeal as pauper for the like relief, pen









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top