IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPMS NO. 3717 OF 2001 Kichha Sugar Company Limited. …..Petitioner. Versus Presiding Officer and another. …Respondents. Mr. R.K. Raizada, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gopal Narain, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 24th June, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Present writ petition is directed against the award dated 12.11.1992 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (2) Lucknow in Reference Case No. 233 of 1988 Kisan Sahkari Sugar Mills Ltd. and others. Vs. Tarai Chini Mill Mazdoor Union contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. 2. The industrial dispute decided by the impugned award was referred in the following terms:- “Whether the assessment of payment of overtime, encashment, bonus and retaining accounts excluding the Hill Development Allowance by the Employer is legal and justified? If not, to what relief, the workmen concerned are entitled to get?” 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a subsidiary unit of M/s U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and deals in manufacturing of crystal sugar through Vacuum Pans in its Factory at Kichha (Nainital). Respondent no. 2 raised a dispute before 2 the Conciliation Board, Kumaon Region, Haldwani, District Nainital to the effect that the workman/members of the respondent no. 2, who are under employment of the petitioner should be paid Hill Development Allowance along with Dues Retaining Allowance, Leave Encashment Dues, Bonus etc. Against the said dispute raised by the respondent no. 2, the petitioner / employer filed an objection denying their entitlement for the abovesaid allowance. Proceedings for conciliation failed and the matter was referred to respondent no. 1. The case was registered as Adjudication Case No. 223 of 1988. 4. Both the parties filed their respective claim, written statements and relevant documents. 5. On the pleadings of the parties as well as taking into consideration, the material available on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the case on 12.11.1992. 6. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned award and other relevant material available on record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned award has been passed violating the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the same is illegal and unsustainable in law. 3 8. Perused the impugned award. While passing the award, the tribunal has taken into consideration the definition of ‘wage’ and thereafter has directed the all the four sugar companies to pay Hill Development Allowance on the amount received regarding leave encashment and over time, but not to pay Hill Development Allowance on Bonus and Retaining Allowance. Further, a finding has been recorded that daily-wager and casual labourer shall not be entitled to get Hill Development Allowance and the same will be payable to only permanent and regular employees. It also came in the order that if the employer is giving any additional benefit to his workmen apart from the aforesaid benefits, this award shall not have any effect over that. It was also made a part of the judgment that Seasonal Workmen shall not be entitled to get the aforesaid benefit. 9. After going through the aforesaid finding recorded by the tribunal concerned, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned award passed by the tribunal concerned and the same is hereby confirmed. 10. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma,J.) 24.6.2008 Rathour/S.K. Sharma