- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. This writ petition was heard by this Court and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, it was allowed on 17th April, 2003 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for allowing the aforesaid petition.
(2.) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950, the petitioners- employers have challenged the impugned award dated 23rd March, 1998, passed by the Prescribed Authority, Labour Court, Allahabad in Adjudication Case No. 20 of 1993, under Section 33-C (2) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'1' to the writ petition. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the workman, Respondent No. 2 moved an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act stating therein that he had been working with the employers with effect from 15th December, 1958 on the post of Tube-well operator on permanent basis on monthly wages of Rs. 2,416 which included basic salary, dearness allowance and other allowances. He has further stated that petitioner No. 1 is the appointing and also payment authority and the petitioner No. 2 is the Head of Department. The workman was retired on 31st July, 1992 at the age of 58 years, whereas he ought to have been retired after attaining the age of superannuation i. e. , 60 years on 31st July, 1994. The workman relied upon a Government order dated 30th January, 1993 which, according to the workman concerned, confers the right on the workman to continue till the age of superannuation i. e. , 60 years. The workman has further stated that inspite of repeated reminders, nothing has been done by the petitioners-employers, therefore this application for payment of salary/wages was moved with effect from 1st August, 1992 till 31st July, 1994, namely 24 months wages at the rate of Rs. 2,416 per month, which comes to amounting to Rs. 57,984 alongwith 12 per cent interest. The petitioners-employers have admitted the workman's employment, but denied all other facts. The employers have set up their case that the age of retirement of the workman is 58 years and therefore the workman had rightly been retired on 31st July, 1992 and the Government order relied upon by the workman, according to which the age of retirement is 60 years, is not applicable in the case of the workman and further that the workman had accepted the retirement at the age of 58 years and after accepting the retirement, his pension etc. has been fixed and the same has been paid to him. The workman has taken a plea that the Labour Court after hearing learned Counsel for both the parties have arrived at the conclusion that according to the G. O. , referred to above, since the workman was working on the post of seasonal operator, which fact was denied by the employer, therefore he was entitled to continue till he attains the age of 60 years. The employers have raised objection on the basis of pleading and evidence adduced by them in support of their contention as to whether the G. O. relied upon by the workman concerned is applicable to him or not? The Labour Court ultimately vide his impugned award held that this G. O. will apply only those workmen, who have retired after 30th January, 1993, therefore the workman concerned is entitled to continue till he attains the age of superannuation i. e. , 60 years and directed for payment of 24 months wages, the details have been referred to above.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on, behalf of the petitioners- employers argued that it is settled law that in exercise of powers under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, this Labour Court will not adjudicate upon the right of the workman concerned as to whether he is entitled to get the wages of the aforesaid period or not, because the proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Act are in the nature of the execution proceeding and once the employers disputed the source or right of the workman concerned to the effect that he has been rightly retired after attaining the age of 58 years. The employers further stated that the age of retirement of the workman concerned was 58 years and not 60 years as held by the Labour Court. The Labour Court in adjudicating upon as to whether the G. O. relied upon by the concerned workman is applicable to him or not. The Labour Court, therefore, has committed manifest error of law in adjudicating upon the rights of the parties without there being any reference in proceeding under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. It is prohibited by the law settled by apex Court. In this view of the matter, the impugned award deserves to be set aside. The Labour Court has wrongly exercised the disputes arose between the parties and the same cannot be done in exercise of power under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 23rd March, 1998 (Annexure-'1' to the writ petition) is quashed. It will be open to the parties to get their right adjudicated upon after getting reference made in accordance with law, if it is otherwise permissible under law. Petition allowed. .;