IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1021 (MS) OF 2006 U.P.S.R.T.C. (now known as) Uttaranchal Transport Corporation, Through its Regional Manager, Kumaon Region, Nainital, District Nainital. …………..Petitioner. Versus 1. Bhagwant Chandra Pant, S/o late Krishna Nand Pant, R/o Shish Mahal, Colonel Ward, P.O. Kathgodam, Tehsil Haldwani, District-Nainital. 2. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Haldwani, Nainital. ………..Respondents. & WRIT PETITION NO. 1022 (MS) OF 2006 U.P.S.R.T.C. (now known as) Uttaranchal Transport Corporation, Through its Regional Manager, Kumaon Region, Nainital, District Nainital. …………..Petitioner. Versus 1. Sri Bansi Lal, S/o Sri Gopi Chand, 160 Roadways Colony, Dehradun. 2. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun. ………..Respondents. WRIT PETITION NO. 1023 (MS) OF 2006 U.P.S.R.T.C. (now known as) Uttaranchal Transport Corporation, Through its Regional Manager, Kumaon Region, Nainital, District Nainital. …………..Petitioner. Versus 1. Kundan Singh, S/o Late Nar Singh, R/o Chinapur, P.O. Haripur Nayak, (Kusumkhera Haldwani), District-Nainital. 2. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Haldwani, Nainital. …………Respondents. & WRIT PETITION NO. 1024(MS) OF 2006 U.P.S.R.T.C. (now known as) Uttaranchal Transport Corporation, Through its Regional Manager, Kumaon Region, Nainital, District Nainital. …………..Petitioner. Versus 1. Smt. Prema Devi, W/o late Gautham Uniyal, R/o Village Dhalwala, P.O. Muni Ki Reti, District Tehri Garhwal. 2. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun. …………Respondents. Dated: 03.08.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri A.N. Sharma and Sri C.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner and Standing counsel for the respondent no.2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 28th March, 2005 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition). Briefly stated, respondent/ workman has filed a claim petition under Section 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haldwani claiming difference of leave encashment arrears arising out of recommendation of 5th Pay Commission. The claim of the respondent /workman was opposed by the U.P.S.R.T.C. by filing a written statement. The Labour Court on different dates allowed the claim of the respondent/ workman. The aforesaid order passed by the labour Court was challenged before this Hon’ble Court in writ petitions. In writ petitions following directions were given:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that according to the direction of the government order dated 24th February, 1999, the fixation of the salary of the employees of the petitioner corporation has been determined by the petitioner corporation but the payment thereof since 01.01.1996to 31.12.1998 has not been made so far, but as soon as the financial position of the petitioner corporation improves or it receives financial assistance from the State Government and direction regarding carving out the plan for the payment thereof, the same shall be made accordingly. The salary as revised according to the implementation of recommendation of the Vth Pay Commission is being paid to the employees of the petitioner corporation since 01.01.1999. In spite of the acute financial crisis the petitioner corporation is making payment according to a plan carved out vide its resolution No. 2553/99 and therefore issued vide Head Quarters Circular No. 186 CENT/G/99/592 Nigam/97, dated 05.03.1999. It has further been submitted that the Dehradun region of the petitioner corporation has already paid a sum of Rs. 2,13,86,675.00 to its employees. Both the parties have agreed that in view of the above, they will consider to clear all the dues by passing the appropriate order for the payment with effect from 1st January, 1996 as per Govt. Order dated 24.02.1999, which was adopted by the policy decision of the U.P.S.R.T.C.” In pursuance of the aforesaid order, labour Court has considered the maintainability of the application under Section 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in favour of the workman. However, in Misc. Case No. 120 of 2002, the Presiding Officer labour Court has passed the order to the following effect:- “Jfed }kjk vius izkFkZuk i= esa vo’ks"k osru ,fj;j :0 20110@& tuojh 99 ls Qjojh 99 rd dk osru fu/kkZj.k ,fj;j 1744@& izFkZuki= ds layXud ds dzekad 3] 4] 5] 6] 7 esa eg¡xkbZ HkRrs dk ,fj;j 6631@& dze 8 esa vftZr vodk’k dk uxnhdj.k 36179@& rFkk rFkk dzekad 10] 11] 12] 13] 14 dk vfrdky HkRrk :0 1603@&dqy :Ik;k 66267-00 dh ekax dh xbZ gS ftlesa ls okn ds fopkjk/khu jgrs gq, okn Ik= ds layXud ds dze 2 esa of.kZr osru fu/kkZ.k ,fj;j :0 1744@& esa ls :0 320@&] layXud ds dze 2] 4] 5] 6] 7 dk iw.kZ Hkqxrku rFkk layXud ds dze 6]10]11]12]13]14 vftZr vodk’k dk uxnhdj.k 28529@& rFkk vfrdky HkRrk :0 75 dqy :Ik;k 57692@&dh ekax dh x;h gS ftlesa ls okn ds fopkjk/khu jgrs gq, Jfed }kjk :0 4953@& izkIr gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gS] tcfd lsok;kstd lk{kh ds vuqlkj Jfed dk tuojh o Qjojh 99 dk ,fj;j Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk dgk x;k gS vkSj Hkqxrku jftLVj ewy :Ik ls U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k tk;sxk dgk x;k gS fdUrq og izLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA ‘’ks"k okn Ik= ds dze 3]4]5]6]7 dk Hkqxrku gksuk dgk x;k gS tks Jfed dks Hkh Lohdkj gSA bl izdkj Jfed dks osru ,fj;j ds :Ik esa :0 28529@& rFkk vfrdky HkRrs ds :i esa :0 75@&dqy :Ik;k 52839@& dh ekax lax.kuk gsrq Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA lsok;kstdksa dks ;g vf/kdkj gksxk fd ;fn muds }kjk lEcfU/kr Jfed dks ekg tuojh og Qjojh 99 dk ,fj;j :0 1868@& okLor esa Jfed dks Hkqxrku dj fn;k x;k gS] rks og mldk lkek;kstu laxf.kr /kujkf’k dk Hkqxrku nks ekg ds vUnj djs] vU;Fkk Jfed vkns’k dh frfFk ls ns; /kujkf’k ij Hkfo’; esa 6 izfr’kr C;kt Hkh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA rn~uqlkj oknh dks ns; /kujkf’k dh lax.kuk dh tkrh gSA** Counsel for the petitioner has referred the judgment of Apex Court passed in Special Leave to Appeal NO. 2229 of 2006, where the similar controversy arose and the following order was passed:- “Delay condoned. Issue notice. There shall be interim stay.” In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the Chairman Labour Court shall be complied with by depositing half of the amount and the same shall be paid to the workman after the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer in two instalments on the duration of two months. The rest of the half shall be paid in two instalments. However, intire payment shall be subject to the final decision in Special Leave to Appeal if the subject matter is the same. Subject to the aforesaid, writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 03.08.2006 Rathour