JUDGEMENT
TARUN AGARWALA,J. -
(1.)THE workman lost his lien on his appointment on account of overstay on leave. The workman raised an industrial dispute with regard to his non-employment. The Labour Court, after considering the matter, passed an award directing reinstatement of the workman with back wages. The said award was implemented and the workman was reinstated and back wages was paid by the employer. The workman, not being satisfied with the back wages, filed an application under Section 6-H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act for the payment of Rs. 78,875.70 claiming that he was entitled for annual and adhoc increment pursuant to the Award directing reinstatement with back wages. The workman also filed another application claiming Rs. 30,562.71 claiming encashment of earned leave, casual leave, bonus and leave travel assistance pursuant to the award. The petitioner filed his objection stating that the application of the workman was not maintainable nor had the Deputy Labour Commissioner any jurisdiction to decide such a dispute. The petitioner contended that the amount claimed was not wages as defined under Section 2 (y) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act nor is it "money due" under a settlement or an award as contemplated under Section 6-H (1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and consequently the entire proceeding are ex facie illegal and that no amount whatsoever was payable.
(2.)THE Deputy Labour Commissioner, after considering the matter, held that the application was maintainable and that it had the jurisdiction to decide the matter and further found that the workman was entitled to increment, encashment of earned leave, bonus, etc. pursuant to the award of the Labour Court. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order and recovery certificate issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, has filed two separate writ petitions, which have been clubbed together and are being decided by a common judgment.
Heard Sri Ritvik Upadhya, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.P. Agarwal, the learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Sumati Rani Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondent workman.
(3.)THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amount claimed is not a "money due" under an award, and therefore, such amount cannot be calculated under Section 6-1-1(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and that the amount claimed could only be adjudicated under Section 6-H(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The learned counsel further submitted that the amount claimed was not part of wages, and therefore, the application under Section 6-1-1(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was not maintainable.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.