Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited vs Presiding Officer and Another

B.S. Verma, J.—Heard Sri Sandeep Kothari, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Dabral, counsel for the respondent No. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 16.2.200 and 24.5.2000, passed by Labour Court Dehradun in Misc. Case No. 40/1999.

Vide impugned order dated 16.2.2000, the application of the workman u/s. 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act was allowed and direction was issued to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,272/-, the arrear of salary during the period 1.12.88 to 20.8.96 and if the payment is not made within a month interest @ 13% per annum shall be payable. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was also awarded as cost of the suit. Vide impugned order dated 24.5.2000 the review application was dismissed.

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner is an undertaking of State of U.P. (now State of Uttarakhand). In order to promote the cause of tourism and to provide the facilities of high standards to the people at large the petitioner runs several tourist bungalows and respondent No. 2 was initially hired on daily wage basis by the petitioner as house keeper in the year 1987. The services of the respondent No. 2 were regularized against the minimum pay-scale of house keeper in the year 1993. The respondent No. 2 feeling aggrieved by her placement while being regularized by the petitioner in the minimum pay-scale of house keeper filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38828 of 1992, Smt. Rani Subba v. Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. and others. The said writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to decide the representation of the respondent No. 2 within a stipulated period. The representation of respondent No. 2 was decided by the petitioner-Corporation on 3.11.1992. Feeling aggrieved by the decision on her representation the respondent No. 2 preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2292 of 1993 before Allahabad High Court and the High Court vide order dated 31-3-1993 issued an ad-interim mandamus commanding the petitioner/Corporation either to pay the salary as claimed by the respondent No. 2 or to show-cause. The petitioner/Corporation has shown cause in the said writ petition. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Corporation vide its order dated 28-7-1997 granted higher scale of Rs. 1400-2300 to the respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 1.12.1988 including the increment with retrospective effect on the representation of the respondent No. 2, where she stated that she would not claim and forgo the arrears of back wages i.e. difference in the pay-scale from the date of grant of approval i.e. 1.12.1988 to 20.8.1996, as she was already given the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2300 on 20-8-1996. Thus the grievance of the respondent No. 2 which was raised in the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2292 of 1993 was redressed. The respondent No. 2 also gave a letter with affidavit for forgoing the arrears for the above period to the petitioner/Corporation. In the affidavit the respondent No. 2 has stated that since the Corporation has redressed her grievance and in view of the order dated 28-7-1997 she would withdraw her petition.

Subsequently the respondent No. 2 moved an application u/S. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court claiming therein that the petitioner/Corporation be directed to pay the arrears of the salary.

The petitioner/corporation contested the claim on the ground that the respondent No. 2 on her own had submitted to the petitioner that she be given the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2300 w.e.f. 1.12.1988 and taking lenient view on the representation of respondent No. 2, the Corporation had granted her the pay-scale from the date as desired by the respondent No. 2 with all incremental benefits excepting the release of back wages as was requested by the respondent No. 2 herself but the Labour Court ignoring the above facts has committed error in ordering to make payment of back wages to respondent No. 2 vide impugned order.

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award, the petitioner Corporation has preferred this writ petition.

The counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 2 before this Court. The only stand has been taken that earlier the respondent No. 2 had filed the writ petition before the High Court at Allahabad and the Hon''ble Court vide order dated 17-9-92 issued direction to the petitioner to decide her representation and when the representation of the respondent No. 2 was not decided by the petitioner then she filed another petition and in that petition the High Court vide order dated 31.3.97 issued direction to the petitioner to pay salary in terms of employment or to show-cause and during the pendency of the said writ petition the representation which was pending before the petitioner had been decided and relief claimed in the writ petition No. 2292 of 1993, was given by the petitioner by order dated 28-7-97 and that writ petition has become infructuous. By order dated 28-7-97 the petitioner has given the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2300 with all benefits including the increments w.e.f. 1.12.1988 for the post of house keeper. The respondent No. 2 after given pay-scale is also entitled for the arrears of salary and learned Labour Court has rightly allowed the claim u/S. 33-C(2) of the Act.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned award.

By a perusal of record it reveals that the petitioner/Corporation has granted the pay-scale Rs. 1400-2300 to respondent No. 2 with effect from 1.12.1988 and an application along with her affidavit has been obtained from the respondent No. 2 to this effect that if she is granted pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2300 w.e.f. 1.12.1988, then she will not claim the arrears of previous period of service. The learned Labour Court has held that such type of agreement is not permissible under the law since the petitioner is a statutory Corporation and governed by law hence it has to proceed in the matter in accordance with law and the respondent No. 2 cannot be declined to claim the arrears of salary. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned award. The petitioner corporation is a statutory Corporation and is governed by rules and regulations and cannot deny the arrears to respondent No. 2 after obtaining an application from her that she would not claim arrears if she is granted pay-scale from a particular date. The action on the part of petitioner corporation cannot be permitted to stand in the eyes of law and is not permissible under the law.

The writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 26-7-2000 passed by this Court is vacated.