S.U.Khan - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BOTH the petitioners have challenged the same order, i.e., order dated 15.9.2005 (Annexure-11 to the first writ petition) passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner under Section 6H (1) of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (equivalent to Section 33C of I. D. Act). The application on which impugned order was passed, was filed on 28.12.2004 by respondent Nos. 2 to 6, Sri Deshpal Sharma and others against both the petitioners. Services of these five workmen (respondents No. 2 to 6) were terminated by the petitioners. They raised industrial dispute. Matter was referred to the Labour Court, U. P., Meerut, where it was registered as Adjudication Case Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9, all of 1981. Services had been terminated on 28.2.1979. All the cases were decided by common judgment/award dated 6.6.1983 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court. Termination order was declared to be illegal and reinstatement with full back wages was directed. However, said award was set aside in writ petition by this Court, against which Civil Appeal No. 2706 of 2000 was filed before the Supreme Court. Supreme Court allowed the appeal. Operative portion of the Supreme Court judgment dated 18.4.2000 has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition and is quoted below : "In our view, justice of the situation requires reinstatement of the workmen concerned being the appellants herein, forthwith and with continuity of service with the council as was directed by the labour court. The reinstatement of the appellants shall be effective within a period of eight weeks from the date hereof. But so far as the payment of back-wages is concerned, since there is no evidence of non-employment of the workmen concerned for all these years, we feel it expedient in the facts and circumstances of the matter, to direct that 30 per cent of the back wages shall be paid to the appellant herein and of the same, 50 per cent (i.e., 15% of back wages) be borne by the Mill and the balance 50 per cent (i.e., only 15%) shall be borne by the council. The appeal therefore, succeeds as aforesaid. The impugned order of High Court is set aside. There will be no order as to costs." (Italics supplied) Thereafter, petitioners were reinstated on 15.5.2000. An amount of Rs. 2,80,000 was paid by the petitioner of the first writ petition and an equal amount by the petitioner of the second writ petition. According, to the petitioner's counsel, this was in full compliance of the order of the Supreme Court. However, respondents after receiving the said amount filed application under Section 6H (1) of U.P.I.D. Act, claiming that they were entitled to more amount as their back salary had not been calculated in the revised pay scale, which was revised in between the period of their termination and reinstatement and increments etc., had also not been added. One application earlier filed by them on 3.10.2000 was consigned to record and thereafter, they filed second application on 28.12.2004 on which impugned order was passed. Copy of the said application is Annexure-8 to the writ petition.
(3.) DEPUTY Labour Commissioner, in the impugned order, held that respondents had not filed any chart and petitioner's chart of due salary was quite correct. However, detailed reasons were not given by DEPUTY Labour Commissioner. Ultimately, DEPUTY Labour Commissioner directed payment of Rs. 17,84,300. Petitioners had claimed the arrears till December, 2004.;