- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Smt. Damyanti Devi wife of late Virendra Prakash filed Misc. Case No. 114 of 2003 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U. P. Meerut under Section 6-H (2) of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming that she was entitled to receive (1) a sum of Rs. 2,83,355 from M/s. Nagar Panchayat Kithor District Meerut and (2) a sum of Rs. 2679. 15p from M/s. Nagar Panchayat Tikri, District Baghpat towards retiral dues, leave encashment, wages for the period of suspension, unpaid salary for the period 4-6-1982 to 3-8-1993, dues of insurance payable to her late husband etc. It was alleged by Smt. Damyanti Devi, the applicant before the Labour Court that her husband late Virendra Prakash was employed as 'baxi' under Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Kithor District Meerut. He died in harness on 5-8-1993. It was also claimed by her that late Virendra Prakash had also been employed with Nagar Panchayat Tikri, District Baghpat during the period 1984-85, as such, she was entitled to the aforesaid dues from both the Nagar Panchayats. It appears from record that late Virendra Prakash was under suspension from 16-6-1984 to February, 1985 while employed in Nagar Panchayat Tikri (Opposite Party No. 2 before the Labour Court) but had not been paid suspension allowance amounting to Rs. 2679. 15p for the aforesaid period; that late Virendra Prakash, her husband used to receive Rs. 3,315/-per month (Rs. 1,390 as basic pay, Rs. 923 as dearness allowance and other allowances) for the period 5-6-1982 to 3-8-1993 but the same had not been paid to him. She claimed Rs. 36,465/-as the unpaid wages for the period 4-6-1982 to 3-8-2003 from respondent No. 1. It was also claimed by her that Nagar Panchayat Kithor, the petitioner in the instant case, was also liable to pay a sum of Rs. 19,890 towards leave encashment of 180 days and a sum of Rs. 44,000 towards insurance amount.
(3.) IT was lastly claimed by her that she was also entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 1,500/-per month as family pension for which she had moved an application in August, 1993, as such, non-payment of the aforesaid benefits were capable of computing money under Section 6-H (2) of the Act. She, therefore, prayed that her entitlement may be determined and the concerned authorities may be directed to pay her outstanding dues together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum till the date of actual payment. The Presiding Officer vide order dated 9-10-2003 issued notices/summons to the employers which were neither received back nor the employers were present on the date fixed, i. e. 12-12-2003. Accordingly, the case was directed to proceed ex parte fixing 19-12-2003.;