Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3787 of 2018 Petitioner :- Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyala Respondent :- Rafiq Ahmad Counsel for Petitioner :- Prakash Padia,Rakesh Kumar,Satendra Chandra Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Ranjeet Kumar Mishra,Satendra Chandra Tripathi
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondents even in the revised call.
The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Labour Court no. 4, Kanpur in proceedings under Section 33- C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent along with several others filed Writ petition no. 15664 of 2007 (Smt. Laxaminia and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was disposed of by the High Court by order dated 6.3.2009 in the same terms with the same direction as rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 37309 of 2000 (Naveneet Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & others) decided on 4.4.2005. The writ petition no. 37309 of 2000 was filed by one Navneet Kumar claiming pay equal to that being paid to other similarly situated employees or regular employees and also to regularise his services. That writ petition was disposed of by this Court by judgement and order dated 4.4.2005 with a direction to the Respondent no.4 -Vice Chancellor, Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Evam Pradyogik Vishwavidyalya, Kanpur to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation and with a direction to the Respondent no. 1-State Government to sanction funds for payment of minimum wages to daily wagers within six weeks.
When the order of the Court in the case of the respondent herein was not being complied with, he filed Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1821 of 2009 and faced with contempt, the respondents (petitioner herein) passed an order on 3.1.2014, Annexure-4 to the writ petition granting the Workmen the pay of Rs.2,550/- being the minimum of the scale of Rs. 2550-3200. The name of the respondent herein occurs at Sr. no. 11 of the list in the order dated 3.1.2014. The respondent then filed an application under Section 33-C(2) for payment of difference of wages at the minimum of the scale w.e.f. 6.2.2009 up to 2.01.2014 which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 31.10.2017.
The contention of Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner first and foremost, is that the application under Section 33-C(2) was filed by the respondent when the contempt application no. 1821 of 2009 was still pending before this Court and his second submission is that the respondent in his claim application has claimed the pay of Rs. 2,550/- for the entire month although he was a daily wager and has worked only for a few days in a month and therefore, his claim of Rs. 4,56,553/- was absolutely illegal and exaggerated and as per the petitioner's own calculation he is entitled only to Rs. 1,80,103/-. The objections filed by the petitioner are also filed with the writ petition as Annexure-10. A perusal of which shows that no plea has been taken by the petitioner department that the respondent had worked only for a few days and that therefore, he was entitled to the arrears of wages from 06.03.2009 up to 2.01.2014 only for the number of days that he had actually worked and not for the entire month. Unless the plea is specifically taken before the Labour Court, the Labour Court cannot be expected to decide the matter on mere assumptions and presumptions.
The petitioner has, however, filed as Annexure-19 to the writ petition a chart showing the number of working days of the respondent workman and averment to that effect has been made in paragraph 24 of the writ petition and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the contents of paragraph 24 of the writ petition have not been denied by the respondent in paragraph 25 of his counter affidavit. If the chart filed by the employer-University is not being disputed by the respondent herein in his counter affidavit that would defeat his own claim and would go to show that he had set up a false claim before the Labour Court in the proceedings under Section 33-C(2). Though the chart filed as Annexure-19 to the writ petition was not filed by the petitioner University before the Labour Court but the fact that it has not been denied by the respondent in his counter affidavit in the writ proceedings in the High Court, the respondent Workman cannot be allowed to take advantage of an order of the Labour Court based upon his false pleadings.
For reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 31.10.2017 is set aside.
The writ petition is allowed.
The matter is remitted to the Labour Court no. 4, Kanpur to decide the matter afresh in the light of the observations made above also considering the document filed as Annexure-19 to the writ petition which has not been disputed by the respondent.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 Kirti