Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1236 (ALL)

UNION BANK OF INDIA v. KANHAIYA LAL RUPANI

2004-07-09

ANJANI KUMAR

body2004
ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE employer-petitioner aggrieved by an order passed by the Presiding Officer, Central government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour court, Kanpur, U. P. dated May 5, 1988, copy whereof is appended as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, allowing the application of the workman concerned under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central act), hereinafter referred to as the Act, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) THE fact as emerges from the writ peti on as well as from the order impugned in the present writ petition is that the workman-respondent was working with the employer-bank as Cashier at Mau Nath Bhanjan Branch. Thereafter, on December 20, 1978 he was suspended and during the period of suspension, he was paid subsistence allowance, as would be clear that this suspension order was recalled vide order dated September 24, 1981. The operative portion whereof is as under :"his suspension from the Banks service shall stand vacated from the date he reports to the Regional Manager. This is without prejudice to the managements right to proceed with disciplinary action at appropriate time. " ( 3 ) IT is admitted case of the parties that no disciplinary proceeding has been initiated or conducted against the workman concerned. The workman concerned therefore filed an application, as stated above, under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. ( 4 ) SRI Vijai Ratan Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the employer-petitioner contended that in view of the decision in Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar air 2003 SC 2917 : 2003 (6) SCC 516 , municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh, razak and another 1995 (1) SCC 235 : 1995-I-LLJ-395 and Allahabad Bank and another v. Deepak Kumar Bhola 1997 (4) SCC 1 : 1997-I-LLJ-854, the Tribunal has erred in law in allowing the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of the workman concerned. He placed reliance of the case of Municipal corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and another (supra) wherein the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court has held as under 1995-I-LLJ-395 at pp. 398 and 400 :"8. . . . . . . . . He placed reliance of the case of Municipal corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and another (supra) wherein the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court has held as under 1995-I-LLJ-395 at pp. 398 and 400 :"8. . . . . . . . . THE power of the Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) extends to interpretation of the awards or settlements on which the workmens right rests, like the executing Courts power to interpret the decree for the purpose of the execution, where the basis of the claim is referable to the award or settlement, but it does not extend to determination of the dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim if there be no prior adjudication or recognition of the same by the employer. . . . . . . . . 12. . . . . . . . . Where the very basis of the claim i or the entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is disputed, there being no earlier adjudication or recognition thereof by the employer, the dispute relating to entitlement is not incidental to the benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside the scope of a proceeding under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmens entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Section 33-C (2)of the Act. It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognized by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires interpretation, that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Courts power under Section 33-C (2) like that of the executing Courts power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution. " ( 5 ) IN the present case, this proposition is not applicable because it is admitted case that after revoking the suspension and reinstatement, no disciplinary proceeding has yet been initiated, though the workman concerned was reinstated way back in the year 1981 and the finding recorded by the Tribunal, in this regard, has neither assailed, nor has been demonstrated to be perverse. To me it appears that it is not a fit case in which this Court should exercise its power under Article 226 of the constitution of India. To me it appears that it is not a fit case in which this Court should exercise its power under Article 226 of the constitution of India. ( 6 ) IN view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. .