http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 4

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 24 of 2005

PETITIONER:

M/s. U.P.S.R.T.C.

RESPONDENT:

Imtiaz Hussain

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/12/2005

BENCH:

ARIJIT PASAYAT & TARUN CHATTERJEE

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a

learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in a review

application.

Factual background in a nutshell was as follows:

The respondent who was appointed as a conductor of the

appellant\026Corporation during inspection on 5.6.1989 he was

found not to have issued tickets to the passengers. He was

placed under suspension on 20.6.1989. The reply submitted

by him was found to be unsatisfactorily and it was decided

to conduct disciplinary enquiry. After conducting the

enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report wherein

charges were held to have been proved against the

respondent. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent

proposing to award the punishment of removal from service

and after considering the reply submitted to the show cause

notice and other relevant record, the appointing authority

passed an order removing him from service. An industrial

dispute was raised by him questioning the legality of the

order dated 31.12.1990. The labour court held that the

enquiry was not conducted in a fair manner. However, being

of the view that the respondent was not in the list of

permanent conductors, it was held that he was not entitled

to get any back wages. Therefore, only an order of

reinstatement was passed. An application purported to be

under Section 6(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (in short the ’U.P. Act’) was filed stating that

the conclusion of the labour court that he was not in the

permanent list was not correct and, therefore, he was

entitled to the benefit of back wages. The labour court held

that though from the pleadings of the parties it was not

clear that the employee concerned was not in the waiting

list of permanent candidates yet the award was to be

modified. Certain directions about the payment of salary,

allowances etc. from 31.12.1992 till reinstatement with

continuity of service was directed. This was questioned by

the appellant before the Allahabad High Court. A learned

Single Judge held that though payment of back wages was not

the normal rule yet on the facts of the case the respondent

was entitled to 50% of the back wages with 9% interest.

Said order is challenged in this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the

order passed by the labour court in purported exercise of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 4

Section 6(6) of the U.P. Act was clearly untenable. The same

only permitted correction of clerical or arithmetical

mistakes in the award or errors arising in the award from

any accidental slip or omission. The order passed by the

labour court modifying the original award was clearly beyond

the scope and ambit of Section 6(6) of the U.P. Act. The

High Court unfortunately did not address itself to this

vital question and directed payment of back wages with

interest.

In response learned counsel for the respondent

submitted that the labour court’s order modifying the award

was correct and no interference is called for particularly

when the High Court has reduced the back wages to 50% with

only 9% interest.

In order to appreciate rival submissions Section 6(6)

of the U.P. Act needs to be extracted. The same reads as

follows:

Section 6(6)

"A Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator

may either of its own motion or on the

application of any party to the dispute,

correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes

in the award, or errors arising therein from

any accidental slip or omission; whenever any

cor