IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1038 (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. Harish Chandra Singh, S/o late Guman Singh, R/o Gulab Ghati Malla, P.O. Kathgodam, Haldwani, District- Nainital. 2. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Haldwani, Nainital. ………..Respondents. & WRIT PETITION NO. 1039 (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. Tara Dutt Sanwal, S/o Chandra Ballbha Sanwal, R/o Village Mura, (Ritha), P.O. Nathuakhan, Tehsil & District-Nainital. 2. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Haldwani, Nainital. ………..Respondents. & WRIT PETITION NO. 1041 (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. Ramesh Chandra Joshi, S/o Sri Prem Ballabh Joshi, R/o Village Baura Kunj P.O. Bhimital. Haldwani), District-Nainital. 2. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Haldwani, Nainital. ……………Respondents. & WRIT PETITION NO. 1042(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. Dayal Singh, S/o late Fransis, R/o Chandmari, P.O. Kathgodam, Haldwani, District Nainital. 2. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Haldwani, Nainital. …………Respondents. Dated: 04.08.2006 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. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 28th May, 2005 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition). Further prayers has been made for staying the effect and operation of the impugned order 28th May, 2005 passed by the labour Court Haldwani in Misc. Case No. 158 of 2002 till the final disposal of this petition otherwise the petitioner will have to suffer irreparably. 3. 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. 4. 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 01.01.1996 to 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 thereafter 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.” 5. 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= ds layXud esa foi{kh }kjk dqy ns; /kujkf’k :0 93771-20 dh lax.kuk dj Hkqxrk djus dh ekax dh xbZ gSA Jfed }kjk vius ekSf[kd c;ku esa okn i= ds layXud ds dzekad 2]3]4]5]6 dk Hkqxrku izkIr gksuk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA vftZr vodk’k udnhdj.k dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;s tkus dk dFku fd;k x;k gSA Jfed }kjk vius okn i= ds layXud ds dzekad 7 esa vftZr vodk’k udnhdj.k dh /kujkf’k :i;k 48425-00 vo’ks"k gksuk dgk x;k gS txfd lsok;kstd xokg us vius c;ku esa Jfed dks ns; vodk’k udnhdj.k dh /kujkf’k :0 41268-00 cuuk dgk x;k gSA ;gk¡ ;g mYys[k vko’;d gS fd Jfed }kjk izLrqr vfHkys[k izn’kZ Mcyq 4 ftlds }kjk Jfed us {ks=h; izcU/kd m0iz0jk0 lM+d ifjogu fuxe] uSuhrky ls vius ns;dksa ds ,d lIrkg ds vUnj Hkqxrku dh ekax dh xbZ gSA Jfed U;k;ky; ds le{k ;g izekf.kr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd mUgsa fdl izdkj ls vftZr vodk’k udnhdj.k :0 48425-00 fdl izdkj ls ns; gSA Jfed }kjk izLrqr vfHkys[k izn’kZ Mcyq 4 ,oa xokgksa ds c;kuksa ij fopkj djus ds mijkUr U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kZ ij igq¡ph gS fd oknh Jfed foi{kh ls vodk’k udnhdj.k dh en esa :0 41268-00 izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS ftldk Hkqxrku lsok;kstd }kjk Jfed dks fd;k tkuk gSA bl izdkj vc lsok;kstd }kjk Jfed dks ns; osru ,fj;j :0 25334-00] lsokfuo`fRr ij 203 fnu ds vftZr vodk’k dk udnhdj.k :0 41268-00 twu 97 ls vDVwcj 98 rd dk vfrdky HkRRkk :0 14425-00 dqy :0 81027-00 dh ekax vo’ks"k gSA vr% Jfed dk izkFkZuk i= /kkjk 33&lh ¼2½ vkS|ksafxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds vUrxZr osru vo’ks"k] vo’ks"k vfrdky HkRRkk RkFkk vftZr vodk’k udnhdj.k :0 81027-00 dh ekax lax.kuk gsrq Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA lsok;kstdksa dks funsZf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd Jfed dks laxf.kr /kujkf’k dk Hkqxrku nks ekg ds vUnj djsa] vU;Fkk Jfed vkns’k dh frfFk ls ns; /kujkf’k ij 6 izfr’kr C;kt izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA rn~uqlkj oknh ns; /kujkf’k dh lax.kuk dh tkrh gSA** 6. 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.” 7. 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, the same shall be subject to the final decision in Special Leave to Appeal in case thue similar matter is pending before the Apex Court with regard to the liability to pay the amount, which has been claimed. 8. Subject to the aforesaid, writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 04.08.2006 Rathour