Allahabad High Court
M/S Ferozabad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari ... vs State Of U.P. And Others on 23 September, 2019
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22279 of 2004 Petitioner :- M/S Ferozabad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. Sikohabad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- H.R. Mishra,G.D.Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,S.C. Tewari Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Sri G.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Although the matter is taken in the revised call, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent-workman.
This petition impugns an order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner under Section 6H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ["the 1947 Act"]. Earlier to those proceedings, the services of the respondent-workman was stated to have been terminated by the petitioner leading to the raising of an industrial dispute. That dispute was ultimately adjudicated upon by the Labour Court and by its Award of 17 February 1997, the respondent-workman reinstated together with full backwages and other attendant benefits. The challenge to that award also failed with the dismissal of the writ petition preferred by the petitioner on 04 September 2002. It is thereafter that the respondent-workman initiated proceedings for computation of benefits. Before this Court, the impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the respondent-workman was being paid wages of Rs.900/- per month whereas he had claimed wages under Section 6H(1) the 1947 Act at a higher rate. According to the petitioner, the computation as submitted by the respondent-workman took into consideration certain minimum wages which had been fixed by the State Government and was not representative either of the pay being drawn immediately before he was retrenched nor did the claim presented by the claimant rest on any increments that may have come to be attached to the pay scale drawn by the respondent-workman. Although, the proceedings are stated to have been contested by the petitioner, this issue does not appear to have been either alluded to or adjudged by the Deputy Labour Commissioner. The Court further notes the pleadings taken in the paragraph 9 of the writ petition in which it is categorically stated that the respondent-workman was being paid only Rs.900/- per month. The plea as taken is not denied by the respondent-workman in the counter affidavit. The issue assumes significance since undisputedly proceedings under Section 6H (1) of the 1947 Act must necessarily stand restricted to a crystallised and adjudicated right. The jurisdiction conferred on the Deputy Labour Commissioner thereunder does not evisage either an adjudication of unsettled rights nor can it expand to adjudication of rights which have not been recognised or granted under the award. This aspect reflects that the ends of justice would merit the matter being remitted to the concerned Deputy Labour Commissioner for decision afresh.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 02 January 2004 and 28 May 2004 are hereby quashed. The matter shall in consequence stand remitted to the Deputy Labour Commissioner who shall proceed to decide the claim under Section 6H(1) the 1947 Act afresh and in light of the observations made above.
Order Date :- 23.9.2019 Vivek Kr.