O.P.Garg, J. - (1.) These are nine writ petitions in which common questions of law and facts have been raised. The respondent No. 2 in each one of the nine writ petitions (hereinafter referred to as the 'employee') were employees of the petitioner-U. P. State Electricity Board (for short 'Board'). All of them have retired. They have filed separate applications under Section 33 (2) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for computation of the amount of their pension/gratuity or both on the ground that the petitioner-Board had passed an order on 21.6.1991 whereby the U. P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 and the new Family Pension Scheme of 1965 as applicable to the State Government Employees were adopted. According to the employees, they were unlawfully denied the benefit of the aforesaid Rules and the Scheme and that they were entitled to pensionary benefits and/or gratuity. The position of the respondent No. 2 covered by each one of the 9 writ petitions is reflected from the following chart : JUDGEMENT_932_TLALL0_1999Html1.htm
(2.) The petitioner-Board has challenged the orders passed in the aforesaid writ petitions in favour of respondent No. 2 primarily on the ground that the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 33C (2) of the Act. as it was not a case of pure computation or calculation of wages or benefits. which may have accrued to the employees.
(3.) Sri S. N. Dubey has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 2 in Civil Misc. Writ No. 16402 of 1999 and 16406 of 1999.;