AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The Petitioner was bus driver in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and was suffering from Tuberculosis and Asthama. Due to his continued ill health his services were terminated and he was paid Rs. 79,872/- towards retrenchment compensation and retiral dues etc.
The workman challenged his retrenchment in writ petition No. 33027 of 2002 in which the order of retrenchment was stayed by the High Court. In compliance with the interim order passed in that writ petition, the workman was reinstated in service and thereafter the department requested to refund amount of retrenchment etc., which was paid to him. The workman did not refund the aforesaid amount and informed the department that aforesaid amount be adjusted from his salary and other dues.
In the aforesaid backdrop, the department initiated departmental inquiry proceeding against the workman on the ground of embezzlement of amount of retrenchment compensation which was not being refund by him. He was thereafter removed from service vide order dated 29.1.2003 on ground of misconduct.
Aggrieved by his removal, workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, U.P. Agra whereas the case.registered as Adjudication Case No. 14 of 2005.
After appreciation of pleadings and evidence, the Labour Court held that:
Aggrieved by the award the corporation has come up in this writ petition. The Court at the time of admission on 4.6.2007 passed the following ad interim order:
Issue notice
Heard Sri Samir Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri J. P. Tripathi who has put an appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 1.
The operation of the award dated 28.8.2006 (Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed in case the Petitioner reinstated the Respondent No. 1 and to pay his salary which was being drawn by the Respondent No. 1 on 29.1.2003. The Respondent No. 1 may file a counter affidavit within a period of one month.
After hearing the parties and perusal of record, I am of the opinion that the amount of retrenchment compensation paid by the corporation to the workman cannot said to have been embezzled by him for the reason that it was paid to him by the corporation and was not taken out surreptitiously without their knowledge. After decision in the writ petition the employers asked him to return the money but he could not return the same as he has spent a substantial part of it on up-bringing of his children and on his medical treatment. Therefore he informed the employee that aforesaid amount may be recovered from his salary.
The amount should therefore be treated as loan given to the workman and he had always shown his intention to pay the said amount which had been given to him by the corporation as a retrenchment compensation and had not intentionally removed from the U.P.S.R.T.C. without their knowledge. The workman has retired from service on 31.8.2007 and has drawn his salary till the date of his retirement.
According to Sri Samir Sharma the workman has not returned any amount of retrenchment compensation from his salary.
In the aforesaid circumstances in my opinion equitable justice would be done if the amount of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Labour Court to the workman towards mental torture etc. is quashed. He has already worked in establishment tinder the order of this Court upto date of his retirement. The amount of retrenchment compensation paid by the employer in the circumstances must be adjusted in the balance of arrears of salary and other dues issued to him towards retirement benefits for the deduction which he has already given consent to the employer.
The amount after adjustment of retrenchment compensation already paid to him shall be paid to the workman within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is partly allowed with aforesaid direction.