Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. & Another vs Mukut Singh & Others on 2 November, 2010
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 30 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34105 of 1996 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. & Another Respondent :- Mukut Singh & Others Petitioner Counsel :- S.G. Hasnain Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.K. Singh,B.N. Singh,H.N. Singh,Smt. Poonam Srivastava Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
List revised.
No one appears for the contesting respondent.
Heard learned standing counsel for the petitioner State.
This writ petition is directed against order dated 04.06.1996 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court U.P. Agra in Misc. case no.33 of 1995 which was a case under Section 33-C (2) of Industrial Dispute Act.
Respondents no.1 to 7 were appointed as part time Tubewell operators. The labour court held that in view of High Court and Supreme Court authorities part time tube well operators were entitled for the same salary as was being paid to full time tube well operators. Accordingly, it was directed that petitioner must pay Rs.715708 (Rs.102244 per workman).
After the judgment of the High Court and Supreme Court Government of U.P. issued the Government Order on 02.04.1996. Several writ petitions were filed in this Court. Hundreds of such writ petitions were clubbed together and decided on 25.04.1996. The leading one was writ petition no.103(SS) of 1996 Jai Karan Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others. Through the said judgment (Annexure-II to the writ petition) it was directed that the salary of regularly appointed tube well operator shall be paid to all part time tube well operators prospectively. The labour court while passing the impugned order did not take into consideration the said judgment.
In this writ petition an interim order was passed on 02.12.1997 to the following effect:
"Until further orders operation of the impugned award dated 04.06.1996 shall remain stayed without prejudice to the rights privilege already extended by the department to part time tube well operators pursuant to the directions issued by this Court or the Supreme Court."
In para 11 of the writ petition it has been stated that the contesting respondents had during pendency of their application before the labour court also filed writ petition no.33239 of 1995 which was disposed of on 22.11.1995 and the copy of the order is Annexure VI to the writ petition. Through the said judgment direction was issued that in case petitioners preferred representation, the concerned engineer shall look into the grievance of the petitioner. In para 9 of the counter affidavit contents of para 11 of the writ petition have been admitted. It was utter abuse of process of Court to raise same dispute before High Court as well as labour court. Moreover, the judgment of the High Court was not placed before the labour court, which amounted to compounding the fault.
In any case as has been held by Annexure 2 judgment dated 25.04.1996, salary of regularly appointed tubewell operators is to be paid to part time tubewell operators only prospectively hence the impugned order passed by the labour court directing such payment from the date of appointment of contesting respondents/part time tubewell operators is erroneous in law.
Accordingly, impugned order is set aside writ petition is allowed.
However, it is clarified that as was directed through interim order dated 02.12.1997 passed in this writ petition, any rights or privileges already extended by the department to the contesting respondents shall not be disturbed.
Order Date :- 2.11.2010 vkg