Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2192
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
U.P.S.R.T.C. - Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. and Ors. - Respondents
Writ C. No. 6971 of 2017
Decided On : 28-08-2019
For the Appellant : Mritunjay Mohan Sahai
For the Respondents: C.S.C., Sachin Dubey and Surendra Nath Dubey
Headnote:
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 4K – Reinstatement – Industrial dispute was raised by the respondent-workman whereupon a reference was made for adjudication –Petition seeks to challenge the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 whereby the appeal filed there against has been rejected – Appeal – Held, Respondent-workman having been directed to be reinstated on the post of conductor with the petitioner-Corporation in terms of the award and the said award having been confirmed vide judgment with the only modification that back wages were reduced to half of what had been granted, and the workman subsequently having attained the age of superannuation, the order passed by the Controlling Authority allowing the claim for payment of gratuity after recording a finding that for the purposes of payment of gratuity under the provisions of the P.G. Act, 1972 what was mainly required to be seen was the existence of the employer-employee relationship – The Appellate Authority having affirmed the order passed by the Controlling Authority for the self-same reasons the said order also requires no interference – Petitioner has not been able to point out any material error or irregularity in the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority so as to warrant interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226. [Paras 40 to 43]
Facts of the Case:
Reinstatement – Industrial dispute was raised by the respondent-workman whereupon a reference was made for adjudication –Petition seeks to challenge the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 whereby the appeal filed there against has been rejected – Appeal.
Finding of the Court:
Respondent-workman having been directed to be reinstated on the post of conductor with the petitioner-Corporation in terms of the award and the said award having been confirmed vide judgment with the only modification that back wages were reduced to half of what had been granted, and the workman subsequently having attained the age of superannuation, the order passed by the Controlling Authority allowing the claim for payment of gratuity after recording a finding that for the purposes of payment of gratuity under the provisions of the P.G. Act, 1972 what was mainly required to be seen was the existence of the employer-employee relationship – The Appellate Authority having affirmed the order passed by the Controlling Authority for the self-same reasons the said order also requires no interference – Petitioner has not been able to point out any material error or irregularity in the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority so as to warrant interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Result: Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed
ORDER :
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri Mritunjay Mohan Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Surendra Nath Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4.
2. The present petition seeks to challenge the order dated 16.07.2016 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972/Assistant Labour Commissioner, U.P., Kanpur in P.G. Case No. 105 of 2014 and also the order dated 20.01.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972/Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P., Kanpur whereby the appeal filed there against has been rejected.
3. The factual background of the case as reflected from the records indicates that an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent-workman whereupon a reference was made under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 The I.D. Act, 1947, registered as Adjudication Case No. 34 of 1993, before the Presiding Officer, U.P. Kanpur. The question referred for adjudication was as follows:-
^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk Jfed Jh vkjŒ,lŒ 'kekZ iq= Jh >Ccw yky ifjpkyd dks fnukad 2-6-1992 dks dk;Z ls i`Fkd oafpr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud gS\ ;fn ugha rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@{kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ fdl frfFk ,oa vU; fdl fooj.k ds lkFk\**
4. The aforementioned reference was answered by the Labour Court vide its award dated 27.05.1995 in the following terms:-
^^blfy, esjs fopkj ls Jfed vkjŒ,lŒ 'kekZ dk uke Árh{kk lwph ls dkV dj gVk;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh esa fu;e dk iw.kZr% ikyu ugha fd;k x;k gSA blfy, esjk vfHker gS fd Jh vkjŒ,lŒ 'kekZ dks lsok lekfIr dh frfFk fnukad 2-6-1992 ls iqu% lsok esa ifjpkyd ds in ij fy;k tk, vkSj Árh{kk lwph ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus dh frfFk ls vfHkfu.kZ; dh frfFk rd dh vof/k ds chp dk mls vk/kk vU; HkRrk lfgr fn;k tk;sA vk/kk osru blfy, fd mlus bl chp fdlh dk;Z dks vatke ugha fn;k vkSj vk/kk osru fn;s tkus ls dkuwu dk ea'kk Hkh iwjk gks tkrk gSA mDr Hkqxrku vfHkfu.kZ; ds Ádkf'kr gksus ds ,d ekg ds vUnj fn;k tk;sA**
5. The award of the Labour Court was put to challenge in the case of U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors. Vs. Ram Shankar Sharma & Ors., Writ C. No.34125 of 1995 which came to be decided in terms of judgment and order dated 07.02.2013, the relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"...This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by an award of the Labour Court dated 27.05.1995 passed in Adjudication Case No. 34 of 1993 by which the Labour Court has reinstated the respondent workman with 50% back wages. The Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was working in the Corporation as a 'Conductor' on a regular basis and, therefore, has reinstated the workman with 50% back wages. Under the interim orders of this Court, the petitioner has already reinstated the workman and counsel for the workman states that he is working since then without any hatch.
The back wages were stayed by this Court. Insofar as the back wages are concerned, the Labour Court has granted 50% back wages to the workman for the period when he was not working up to the date of passing of the award.
In view of the fact that the Labour Court has not recorded any finding with regard to the fact as to whether the workman was gainfully employed or not during the period the back wages have been awarded, which could only be justified to reduce the back wages to 50% what has been granted by the Labour Court.
Thus, in the interest of justice, the award of the Labour Court is confirmed subject to the modification that the back wages are reduced to half of what has been granted in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. Vs. U.N. Pandey reported in 2006 (1) SCC 479. The amount, which is due to the workman shall be paid to him within the next two months upon his making an application.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of as above. No. costs."
6. Upon his superannuation, the respondent-workman filed an application before the Controlling Authority under Sectio
