Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.And another vs Vinod Kumar and Others

Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.03.2018 rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in WPSS No. 1203 of

2013, whereby the writ petition filed by some of the employees i.e. Respondent nos. 1 to 7 in the appeal engaged through Uttarakhand Purva sainik

Kalyan Nigam Ltd. (in short ‘UPNL’) was allowed and the principal employer i.e. Uttarakhand Power Coporation Limited was directed to pay

minimum pay-scale to the writ petitioners’ as is being paid to their regular counter parts, along with holidays.

It is the contention of the appellants in this appeal that the union of the employees, engaged through UPNL of which respondents 1 to 7 were the

members had raised an industrial dispute claiming almost a similar relief, which was referred for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal, Haldwani. The

Industrial Tribunal decided the reference in favour of the union and the award given by the Industrial Tribunal was challenged by the employer i.e.

Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in WPSS No. 3283 of 2017 and learned Single Judge of this

Court has stayed the operation of the award given by Industrial Tribunal, Haldwani vide order dated 03.01.2018 subject to fulfillment of certain

conditions by the employer.

The appellants are to blame themselves for their mistake, of not diligently contesting the proceedings in WPSS No. 1203 of 2013 from which this

special appeal lies because the stay order passed by the Coordinate Bench against the award on 03.01.2018 was passed in the writ petition filed by the

appellant, it was their duty to have placed the said fact before the learned Single Judge when the impugned judgment in the appeal was rendered on

21.03.2018. Having not done so, they have to blame themselves, not the Courts. Another aspect is that even in the instant appeal, the appellant has not

taken any ground regarding the effect of interim order passed in writ petition no. 3283 of 2017 on 03.01.2018, only oral arguments have been raised.

Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, two Benches of this Court were seized of the same matter and different orders were

passed. It is the further contention of learned counsel for the appellant without a pleading in appeal that factum of pendency of the adjudication case

filed by union of employees before Industrial Tribunal, Haldwani was mentioned in the supplementary counter affidavit, filed in WPSS No. 1203 of

2013, but the fact of its adjudication, filing the writ petition 3283 of 2017 against it or grant of stay order on 03.01.2018, the learned Senior Counsel

fairly admits that this aspect could not be brought to the notice of learned Single Judge during the course of arguments.

Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel further submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to file an

application seeking review of the judgment dated 21.03.2018. He further submits that right of the appellant may be reserved to challenge the judgment

dated 21.03.2018, in appeal, if need be.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent has filed contempt petition which is scheduled to be listed on 14.09.2018. Mr. M.C. Pant,

learned counsel for the respondents submits that he will not pursue the contempt petition on the said date and he will seek an adjournment.

In the interest of justice, permission to withdraw the appeal is granted with aforesaid liberty.

Accordingly, present special appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.