Advocates:
['SAMEER SHARMA', '', 'MUKESH KUMAR SINGH', 'V M SAHAI', 'C S C', '', 'RANJEET KUMAR MISHRA', 'DR G S D MISHRA']

Court No. - 38

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13856 of 1998

Petitioner :- U.P.State Road Transport Corporation And Others

Respondent :- Arvind Kumar Gupta And Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sameer Sharma,Mukesh Kumar

Singh,V.M. Sahai

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dr. G.S.D. Mishra,Ranjeet

Kumar Mishra

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

List revised. Sri Ranjeet Kumar Mishra learned counsel

representing the respondent-workman states that he has no

instructions in the matter.

Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar Singh learned counsel for the

petitioners.

Challenge has been raied to the award of the Labour Court-IV,

Kanpur dated 27.3.1997 in Adjudication Case (New) No. 313 of

1995. Earlier by order dated 10.5.1995 following reference had

been made to the Labour Court:-

"Kya sewayojkon dwara Sri Arvind Kumar Gupta putra Sri

Babu Lal Gupta-Parichalak ko aadesh dinank 13/6/1983

dwara karya se prithak/vanchit kiya jana uchit evam vaidhanik

hai? Yadi nahi to sambandhit shramik kya hitlaabh/kshatipoorti

paane ka adhikari hai? Kis tithi evam anya kis vivran ke sath?

Answering the above reference, the Labour Court granted relief

of reinstatement with 50 % backwages to the workman. Upon

present challenge being raised, this Court vide its order dated

05.5.1998 granted stay with respect to payment of backwages

subject to the respondent-workman being reinstated.

Today learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner

had complied with the interim order. 24 years have passed. The

respondent-workman may have attained the age of

superannuation by now. In any case, it is too late in the day to

now consider the admissibility of relief of reinstatement as

practically the respondent-workman has remained engaged with

the petitioner, for a lifetime.

Besides merit of the case and in view of the above fact arising

from long pendency of the writ petition, before this Court, no

interference is warranted in the award of reinstatement.

As to the relief of backwages, it is seen, the Labour Court has

not recorded any findings on lack of gainful employment of the

respondent-workman. The award is completely silent in that

regard. Then, as to the issue of delay, framed by the Labour

Court, it has been noted that against the disengagement made

on 13.6.1983, an appeal was filed by the workman union which

came to be rejected on 23.4.1984. Further appeal was claimed

to have been filed after amendment to the regulations made in

the year 1987. Thereafter, the reference was made in the year

1995. Clearly, there was a long lapse of 12 years before

reference arose. In view of the above, it is difficult to accept the

findings of the Labour Court that it was the fault on the part of

the employer leading to the delay in making the reference.

The facts noted by the Labour Court only indicate that the

workman took time to avail his legal remedies. In those facts, it

is difficult to sustain the award of the Labour Court granting

relief of backwages especially when the award is completely

silent as to absence of gainful employment.

The above relief of backwages granted by the Labour Court

may not sustain. The award is accordingly modified to the

extent that the respondent-workman would remain entitled to

the relief of reinstatement without any backwages.

The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed.

Order Date :- 30.5.2022

Faraz

Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD

Date: 2022.05.31 10:07:10 IST

Reason:

Location: High Court of Judicature

at Allahabad