RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR URTC
LAWS(UTN)-2012-3-23
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on March 30,2012

RAJENDRA KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
Managing Director Urtc Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) By means of this petition the petitioner has sought the following relief:-- (1) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to pay the salary as per the rule during the suspension period and back-wages along with other consequential benefit from 5.4.1982 to 16.9.1990 to the petitioner. (2) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to give the benefit of wage revision from time to time along with the other benefit to the petitioner. (3) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to pass appropriate order for fixation of salary along with other emoluments as applicable to the petitioner and same may be paid to the petitioner. (4) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion forthwith from the date of his eligibility and consequently to pay the promotional pay scale and other benefits to the petitioner. (5) To issue any other writ, order or direction which be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner. (6) Award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner. Briefly stated the facts of the case, according to petitioner, are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Bus Conductor in the U.P.S.H.T.O. Saharanpur Depot in the year 1972. The petitioner was suspended on 10.8.1981 from duty on a false charge of misconduct and he was given charge-sheet on 21.8.1981 and 23.9.1981. The petitioner submitted his explanation and denied the charges. Thereafter the petitioner was dismissed from his service on the inquiry conducted against him on 5.4.1982 by A.R.M., Saharanpur. Feeling aggrieved by his dismissal the petitioner raised industrial dispute before Labour Court, Meerut which was subsequently transferred to the Labour Court, Dehradun. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun adjudicated Case No. 100/1989 and vide award dated 12.6.1990 declared the dismissal of the petitioner as illegal as he was not given show cause notice prior to his dismissal. The Labour Court in the said award had given option to the respondents either to reinstate the petitioner or suspend him and give show cause notice to him. The respondents adopted the second formula and reinstated the petitioner into service on the original post of Conductor w.e.f. 16-9-1990 vide letter dated 2.3.1991.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that at the time of his reinstatement he was not given his old pay which he was getting before his dismissal and he was put with the fresh incumbent salary which is not justifiable. The petitioner was also given show cause notice dated 4.4.1991 which was replied by the petitioner vide his reply dated 16.10.1991. According to petitioner the show cause notice was also defective as no inquiry report was given to the petitioner along with show cause notice. However, no action has been taken on the alleged show cause notice dated 4.4.1991 and the petitioner is discharging his duties without any break since 16.9.1990 till date. Thus, the petitioner is legally entitled to his back-wages with other consequential benefits and promotional avenues, the benefit of revision of wages from time to time since the date of his suspension till today as during his dismissal the petitioner was not employed anywhere else. When no heed was paid by the respondents to the grievance of petitioner, the petitioner raised another industrial dispute through his Union before Labour Court, Dehradun on 31.5.2002. The Labour Court vide its award dated 31.10.2006 rejected the claim of the petitioner raised under Section 4K of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 on the ground that the matter has already been adjudicated by the Labour Court vide award dated 12.6.1990. Hence the petitioner has filed this petition for award of salary as per rule during the suspension period and back-wages along with other consequential benefit from 5.4.1982 to 16.9.1990.
(3.) The respondents filed counter-affidavit and alleged that the Labour Court vide its award dated 12.6.1990 directed the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner and liberty was given to the Corporation that after given him again show cause notice action can be taken against the petitioner. On direction of Labour Court, Regional Manager, Dehradun vide order dated 2.3.1991 'reinstated the petitioner in the service and on 4.4.1991 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Regional Manager, Dehradun, It is further alleged in the counter affidavit that from 16.9.1990, when the petitioner was reinstated, the petitioner's salary was fixed at Rs. 950 in the 4th new pay scale, considering his old pay scale and thereafter he was given annual increment every year. The service record of the petitioner was not satisfactory therefore the petitioner could not be promoted to the post of Junior Clerk and he was promoted to the post of Junior Clerk vide order 9-6-2008 but he refused the same. It is further submitted that the petitioner was given 10 years time scale w.e.f. 12-9-2004. The petitioner is not entitled to get any of the relief claimed in the writ petition. The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit and reiterated the facts mentioned in the writ petition.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.