Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Shri Ram Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Lucknow and others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18305 of 2019
Decided on : 02-04-2024
Employment - Salary Arrears - Industrial Disputes Act - Sections 33-C(2) - The court interpreted Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing that claims for equal pay for equal work must be pursued through proper industrial dispute channels, not through summary proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a muster roll employee, sought arrears of salary and regularization after being retrenched. His claims were based on various court orders and industrial disputes, but he faced multiple dismissals and challenges regarding his entitlement to regular pay and back-wages.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to fulfill conditions for regularization and misrepresented his involvement in previous cases to claim undue benefits. The court emphasized that his claims for regular pay were not substantiated by his qualifications or job responsibilities.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to arrears of salary and regularization as a Sub-Station Operator, and whether he misrepresented facts to secure payments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that claims for regularization and equal pay must be pursued through appropriate industrial dispute mechanisms, and that misrepresentation undermines a party's entitlement to equitable relief.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.-Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Usha Kiran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Division-II, Muzaffar Nagar dated the 24th of October, 2019, rejecting the petitioner's claim for arrears of salary upon proper determination and directing recovery of emoluments paid in excess to him.
3. This case has a long and chequered history as much litigation has preceded the present cause, all of which have led to the order impugned. It must be remarked at the outset that pleadings in the writ petition about the petitioner's case are far from complete and wholesome. These present a disjunct picture, a version so flickering and fleeting that unless one looks to the counter-affidavit and takes aid of the oral submissions advanced, the petitioner's case would just be an unintelligible jumble of facts.
4. The petitioner was engaged as a muster roll employee on 19.12.1997 by the ex-Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short, 'the Board'), the predecessor of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow (for short, 'the Corporation') and the various Distribution Corporations, amongst others. The petitioner came to be retrenched on 20.11.1978 for reason that the Board had placed a ban on engagement of muster roll employees. An industrial dispute was raised by the Union, of which the petitioner was a member, questioning the retrenchment. It led to the registration of Adjudication Case No. 77 of 1990 on the file of the Labour Court, Muzaffar Nagar. In the adjudication case, the reference came to be answered in favour of the workmen directing their reinstatement with back-wages.
5. The aforesaid award passed by the Labour Court was challenged by the Board by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30070 of 1991, which was heard and dismissed by this Court. The Board appealed by petitioning the Supreme Court for special leave. The Supreme Court granted leave and allowed Civil Appeal No. 4889 of 1993, arising out of SLP (C) No. 844 of 1993 in terms that the award passed by the Labour Court and upheld by this Court was modified to the extent alone that instead of reinstatement with full back-wages, it was granted with 10% back-wages. It appears that the petitioner moved a contempt petition in Civil Appeal No. 4889 of 1993, or the Union moved it for his benefit, where the Supreme Court ordered on the 24th of March, 1995 that the petitioner will report to the Superintending Engineer on or before 3.4.1995 and join services, wherever he is asked to do by the said Engineer. As remarked earlier, none of the parties have brought to the notice of this Court the complete record of earlier proceedings, particularly those arising out of the industrial dispute, that culminated before the Supreme Court. It nevertheless appears that the petitioner filed Misc. Case under the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming wages as a regular employee.
6. The petitioner was reinstated in service pursuant to the direction made in the contempt petition, but was not paid back-wages at the rate of 10% from the date of the award passed by the Labour Court, as modified by the Supreme Court vide their Lordships' order dated 10.9.1993. The issue, regarding payment of back-wages and the rate it was payable, was agitated by the petitioner through an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, which was filed on 17.4.1995. The petitioner annexed a calculation chart to the said application, working out a sum of Rs. 2,59,048.83, which he claimed together with interest. The application was heard by the Labour Court, which allowed it in part to the extent of a sum of Rs. 1,01,608.12 and for the balance of Rs. 1,57,440.71, rejected it. This order was passed by the Labour Court on 10.9.1996.
7. The Labour Court's order last mentioned was chall
Claims for equal pay and regularization must be pursued through proper industrial dispute channels, and misrepresentation disqualifies a party from equitable relief.
Employees seeking regularization must prove alignment with established criteria and demonstrate identical duties to claim parity in pay under the law.
Regularization for promotion posts requires prior service in the lower cadre, and claims of discrimination must be substantiated by participation in relevant judicial proceedings.
The court directed the government to consider proposals for regularisation of daily wage workers while upholding the principle of 'no work no pay' regarding wage claims.
For placement in a regular pay scale, the claimant has to be a regular appointee selected on the basis of a regular process of recruitment. An employee appointed on a temporary basis cannot claim to ....
An employee's continuous service is recognized once a termination is set aside, impacting their eligibility for regularization despite initial appointment irregularities.
The significance of documentary evidence, finality of court orders, and the impact of delay and laches on the dismissal of a petition.
Claims for classification and regularization of employees must be supported by proof of duties performed; lack of evidence can lead to dismissal of such claims.
The court affirmed that casual workers are entitled to the minimum of the pay scale for their roles based on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', as established in relevant Supreme Court ruli....
Employment claims must be substantiated with evidence; unproven assertions cannot alter established job designations.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
