IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1539 of 2007 (M/S) (Old No. 2183 of 1993) [ L.H. Sugar Factory Private Limited Kashipur, Nainital Through its General Manager (Now known as Kashipur Sugar Mills Limited Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar). ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. Presiding Oficer Industrial Tribunal –II, U.P., Lucknow. 2. State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand). 3. Tarai Chini Mill Mazdoor Union and Janta Chini Shramik Sangh, C/o R.D. Joshi, Doctors’ Lane, Kashipur, District Nainital (Now part of Distt. U.S. Nagar). ...………… Respondents Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gopal Narain, Brief Holder for respondents 1 & 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 12th of November 1992, passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal –II, U.P., Lucknow, in Adjudication Case No. 223 of 1988, published on 30th of November 2 1992, whereby said Tribunal has directed the petitioner to pay hill development allowance on leave encashment, leave salary and overtime wages, to its workmen. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner M/s L.H. Sugar Factory Private Limited (now known as Kashipur Sugar Mills Limited, Kashipur) is a Private Sector company incorporated under the provisions of the Company’s Act. There are some 900 employees employed in said factory of the petitioner who are members of the Workers Unions (respondent No. 3). The respondent No. 3 raised an industrial dispute before the conciliation machinery under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming hill development allowance on overtime wages, leave encashment, bonus and retaining allowance. A reference is made by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal as under:- “D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius lEkLr lhtuy Jfedksa dks LFkkbZ Jfedksa dh Hkkafr vksoj Vkbe] udnhdj.k] cksul rFkk fjVsfuax ,ykmUl dk Hkqxrku dh lax.kuk ioZrh; fodkl HkRrk dks 'kkfey djrs gq;s u fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk @vFkok oS/kkfud gSA ;fn ugh] rks lacaf/kr leLr Jfed D;k ykHk@vuqrks"k ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSa] rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k ds lkFkA” (Translation) 3 “Whether, non inclusion of hill development allowance on encashment, bonus and retaining allowance payable to the workmen, by the employers, is just and lawful? If not, to what relief / benefits the workmen are entitled, and with what particulars?” 4) In the industrial dispute, apart from the petitioner, the other employers namely, Kishan Sahakari Chini Mills Limited, Nadehi; Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited, Bazpur; Kichha Sugar Company Limited, Kichha, were also included. But, all these three employers were organizations in the Public Sector. Only the petitioner L.H. Sugar Factory Private Limited (now known as Kashipur Sugar Mills Limited, Kashipur) was a Private Sector Undertaking. The petitioner’s case is that 15 per cent hill development allowance payable w.e.f. 1st of March 1982, is payable to the government employees, and not to the employees of the Private Sector. On this ground the impugned award has been challenged by the petitioner. 5) Before further discussion, this Court thinks it just and proper to quote the Government Order by which hill development allowance was granted by the State of U.P. to its employees working in hill districts. The said Government Order No. 6295 / 28.9.88 / 46(46) / 87 dated 21st of November 1988, reads as under: 4 la0 6295@28&9&88@46¼46½@87 “Izks"kd Jh lqjsUnz pUnz jLrksxh Lka;qDr lfpo m0Ikz0 'kkluA Lksok esa] LkEkLr foHkkxk/;{k ,ao izeq[k dk;kZy;k/;{k] m0iz0A ioZrh; fodkl vuqHkkx&9 y[kuÅ% fna0%21 uoEcj] 1988 fo"k;%& ioZrh; {ks=ksa esa ioZrh; fodkl HkRrkA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d 'kklukns’k la[;k 1610@28&4&82&5¼2½@82 fnukad 29 vIkzsy] 1982 dk la’kks/ku djrs gq;s eq>s ;g dgus dk fuZns’k gqvk gS fd osru lfefr mRRkj izns’k 1987 ds izfrosnu rFkk ml ij fopkj djus ds fy, xfBr eq[; lfpo lfefr dh laLrqfr;ksa ij 'kkldh; ladYi la[;k os0vk0&1&2246@nl&59¼,e½&1988] fnaukd 14&8&88 ds ifjis{; esa jkT;iky egksn; lg"kZ ;g vkns’k nsrs gS fd fnaukd 1 tqykbZ] 1988 ls izns’k ds ioZrh; {ks= ds ikap tuinksa &vYeksMk] uSuhrky] nsgjknwu] ikSMh x<oky rFkk fVgjh x<oky esa rSukr leLr iw.kZdkfyd jkT; deZpkfj;ksa ,ao vf/kdkfj;ksa dks ioZrh; fodkl HkRrk uhps rkfydk esa mfYyf[kr fofHkUu osru LyScksa esa muds lEEkq[k bzfxr nj ij ns; gksxkA *osru dk rkRi;Z ml ewy osru ls gksxk] tSlk fd foRrh; gLr iqfLrdk [k.M&2 Hkkx&2&4 ds ewy fu;e 9¼21½¼1½ esa ifjHkkf"kr gSA Oksru lhek ¼#0½ ioZrh; fodkl HkRrs dh njsa ¼#0½ 999 rd 40 1000 ls 1999 rd 80 2000 rFkk mlls Åij 120 2& mi;qZDr njksa ls ioZrh; fodkl HkRRkk dh vuqeU;rk ds fy;s osru lhek dh x.ku foRRk ¼osru vk;ksx½ vuq0&1 ds 'kklukns’k la[;k os0vk0&1&3448@nl&84¼,e½88 fnaukd 22&10&88 esa mfYYkf[kr izfdz;k ds vuqlkj dh tk;sxhA ;g vkns’k foRr foHkkx ds v’kkldh; la[;k th¼1½@1457¼1½@n&1983 fnaukd 18 uoEcj] 1988 esa izkIr mudh lgefr ls tkjh fd;s tk jgs gSaA Hkonh; g0@lqjsUnz pUnz jLrksxh la;qDr lfpoA” 5 Perusal of the above quoted Government Order clearly indicates that said Government Order is applicable to the government servants and employees. It is nobody’s case that the employees of the petitioner L.H. Sugar Factory Private Limited (now known as Kashipur Sugar Mills Limited, Kashipur) are the government servants. This fact is not denied by any of the respondents that the petitioner is a private company incorporated under the Company’s Act. That being so, on the face of it the Industrial Tribunal appears to have committed grave error of law in making the Government Order applicable to the employees of a private factory. As such, the impugned order / award, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, in Adjudication Case No. 223 of 1988, is liable to be quashed, so far it relates to the employees working in the petitioner’s factory. 6) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order / award dated 12.11.1992, passed by the Industrial Tribunal –II, U.P., Lucknow, in Adjudication Case No. 223 of 1988, published on 30th of November 1992, is quashed to the extent it relates to the employees of the petitioner L.H. Sugar Factory Private Limited (now known as Kashipur Sugar Mills Limited, Kashipur). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. August 21, 2009. H. Negi