Ratan Lal Shukla vs State of U.P. and another

D. K. Seth, J.—It is alleged that the petitioner was not being paid his retrial benefits and pension for which he had approached the Labour Court u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Pursuant to the order passed by the Labour Court dated 3rd March, 1994 in Case No. 146 of 1993, the respondent No. 2 was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 87. 659.24 Paisa. which was paid on 1st August, 1995 by the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, no payment having been made, the petitioner filed another application u/s 33C(2) of the said Act. for payment. By virtue of an order dated 23rd October, 1997, further sum was directed to be paid to the petitioner. Thus, it appears that the respondents are not disputing that the petitioner is entitled and eligible for payment of pension and other retrial benefits which are admissible to him in law. It appears that a sum of Rs. 97,160 has since been paid on 4th July, 1998. In case the orders of the Labour Court are not challenged by the respondent, the respondents cannot withhold the payment of pension and other retrial benefits which are due to the petitioner as admissible in law. In that event, the respondents, are directed to make the payment of pension and other retrial benefits as would be due and admissible to the petitioner in law regularly in accordance with law henceforth, including arrears, if any. Such payment should be made within a period of three months from the date together with indication of the calculation of the dues to the petitioner.

The writ petition is thus disposed of finally after hearing Sri P. C. Jhingan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mahesh Chandra Trlpatht, counsel for the respondent No. 2. Since the respondents cannot compel the petitioner to approach the Labour Court u/s 33C(2) every time. Inasmuch as it would show that the conduct of the respondent is not bona fide. If it is so in that event, this Court cannot close its eyes and remain an idle onlooker. If such a stand is taken which lacks bona fide, the Court is supposed to activate itself to remedy the ill and compel the respondents to act bona fide. The pension has been held to be a property and a right to livelihood vis-a-vis right to life, a fundamental right by the Apex Court. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is supposed to come to the rescue of the petitioner provided his legal or fundamental right is infringed by an authority amenable to writ jurisdiction owing public duty. There, will, however, be no order as to costs.