Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42544 of 2018 Petitioner :- Nagar Nigam Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Yashwant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,S.N.Dubey
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Y.S. Sachan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.N.Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.
The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the recovery certificate dated 26.4.2018 as well as citation dated 25.5.2018.
Briefly stated , the facts of the case are that the services of the respondent no. 3 were dispensed with on 18.11.2003 upon which he raised an industrial dispute which was ultimately decided through an award dated 27.11.2007 passed in Adjudication Case No. 45 of 2004. The Labour Court rejected the claim for back wages but at the same time held the removal from the service from 18.11.2003 to be wholly illegal and directed reinstatement of the respondent no. 2 in service with full continuity of service. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 6-H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming that after reinstatement he was entitled to be paid wages @ Rs.250/- per day from June, 2014 to July, 2017 whereas the petitioner employer had paid him wages only @ Rs.120/- per day. Notices were issued by the Labour Court to the petitioner employer but it has come on record that in spite of 13 sittings the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings at all and therefore, the Labour Court by the impugned order dated 26.4.2018 has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,060/- being the arrears of difference of wages for the period from June, 2014 to July, 2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on various grounds. However, I find that in the impugned order, the Assistant Labour Commissioner has not discussed anywhere what was the wages during the period from June, 2014 to July, 2017. It is not understood as to on what basis he has determined the wages as being Rs.250/- per day.
Sri S.N.Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 on the other hand submitted that there was a Government Order dated 9.6.2014 in which the wages to be paid were determined at Rs.250/- per day for the post of Sweeper in the Nagar Palikas.
Be that as it may, in the absence of any discussion by the Assistant Labour Commissioner as to how he arrived at the figure of Rs.250/- per day as wages for awarding the claim of Rs.1,25,060/- against the petitioner, the impugned order suffers from foundational illegality and therefore, must necessarily be set aside.
The impugned recovery certificate dated 26.4.2018 as well as citation dated 25.5.2018 are accordingly set aside.
The writ petition is allowed.
The matter is remitted to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kanpur Region, Kanpur, respondent no. 1 to re-examine the matter in the light of the observations made hereinabove and decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in his office.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 nd