- (1.)The Petitioner-Megh Varan Sharma was appointed as Chief Chemist in Shree Sitaram Sugar Co. Limited, Baitalpur, District Doria (Uttar Pradesh). The aforesaid sugar mill was taken over by the State Government on 24.04.1989. Thereafter, it came to be vested in the Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation Limited. It is thus, that the Petitioner's employment came to be regulated by the above Corporation. It is not a matter of dispute that the above Corporation is State, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Whilst the Petitioner was posted as Chief Chemist at Maholi Unit of the Corporation, he received a notice of retirement on 17.4.2000. Pursuant to the above notice, the Petitioner was actually retired from service with effect from 31.8.2000.
(2.)On account of his retirement, the Petitioner was entitled to his gratuity and other retiral benefits. It is therefore, that the Petitioner started making efforts to recover the aforesaid dues. It is not a matter of dispute, that even the personnel department of the Corporation by a communication dated 29.05.2002, directed the releasing of retiral benefits to the Petitioner. Despite that, the Petitioner was not released any such monetary benefits.
(3.)Eventually, the Petitioner moved an application before the Labour Court Under Section 6H(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 17/2004. For gratuity, the Petitioner raised his claim Under Section 10(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1975, which was registered as P.G. Case No. 5 of 2004. According to the Petitioner, after he had initiated the above mentioned proceedings, he was asked by the Respondent-Corporation to withdraw the cases filed by him, with the assurance that he would be released his retiral benefits. Consequent upon the above, Respondent No. 2, i.e., the General Manager, U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited vide an order dated 25.07.2008, directed early payment of Rs. 2,41,469.15 to the Petitioner. The above amount constituted the dues payable to the Petitioner at the time of his retirement (on 31.08.2000). It is not a matter of dispute, that the Petitioner actually received the aforesaid retiral benefits on 21.08.2008. It is therefore apparent that the payment which was due to the Petitioner on 31.08.2000, came to be released to him after eight years' of his retirement on 21.8.2008.