G.B. Pant University v. Govind Ballabh Pandey and Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. A. R. Lakshmanan
A.K. Mathur
Judgment Date: 2006-09-19
Court Decision / Holding: The Court directed the University to reinstate respondent Nos. 1 to 8 within one month from the date of the order, without back wages, but with increments after reinstatement, and with pensionary benefits and continuity of service. The relief is confined to respondent Nos. 1 to 8 and is not to be treated as a precedent for others.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

G.B. Pant University

Respondents

Govind Ballabh Pandey and Others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Vijay Hansaria
• Jatinder Kumar Bhatia

Counsels for Respondents

• Meenakshi Arora

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal concerns whether the regularisation of cafeteria employees of G.B. Pant University under a Labour Court award should include back wages where the employees were later found to have left campus or been employed elsewhere when the reference was heard. The Labour Court held that 170 employees working in the cafeteria were employees of the University and entitled to regularisation from the date of the award, with arrears of salary. The University challenged the order in the Allahabad High Court; the High Court upheld the Labour Court’s directive for regularisation and arrears. Subsequently, 128 employees were regularised and paid the salary difference while 42 employees, including the respondents herein, did not come forward to regularise. The respondents claimed arrears under Section 6-H of the UP Industrial Disputes Act. The University argued that these 42 employees were not in service when the reference/award was made and were gainfully employed elsewhere, so arrears could not be payable. The Supreme Court, after considering fairness and consistency with those who were reinstated without back wages, held that respondent Nos. 1 to 8 should be reinstated within one month, without back wages, but with increments, pensionary benefits and continuity of service. The judgment limits its relief to those eight before the Court and states it should not be treated as a general precedent.

Provisions of Law Cited

UP Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 6-H

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The University contends that 42 employees who did not come forward were not in service when the reference was made or the award passed and were gainfully employed elsewhere, hence arrears cannot be claimed. It argues that paying arrears in these circumstances would be inconsistent with the relief already granted to other similarly situated employees who were regularised or reinstated without back wages, and that the scope of the award should not extend to those who severed ties before the award. The University maintains that there should be no liability for back wages for those not in service at the relevant time, and that the High Court correctly directed denial of arrears in respect of these respondents.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents claim arrears of salary under Section 6-H of the UP Industrial Disputes Act, arguing that the Labour Court rightly directed regularisation and payment of arrears for those who remained in the University’s service. They urge that equal treatment be given to all cafeteria staff who were found to be in service and that back wages should flow where the award directs regularisation. They contend the University’s defence is an afterthought and that the award and Labour Court order should apply to all cafeteria staff who were later found to be in regular service.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A ## G.B. PANT UNIVERSITY _v._ # GOVIND BALLABH PANDEY AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 19. 2006 [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND A.K. MATHUR,JJ.] ## _Labour Laws:_ _U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Regularisation-Grant of, to several employees with difference in salary on the ground that they were in service-_ C _Few of the re111aining employees claiming arrears of_ sala1J~Employers _case thal e111ployees not in service bu/ gainfi1/ly e111ployed elsewhere when reference 111ade and award passed directing regularization-Held: Since other similarly placed employees taken back into service without back wages, claim of employees justifiable-Employees to be reinstated without back wages._ D In terms of the award passed by the Labour Court, which was upheld by High Court, services of 128 employees were regularised and were paid difference in salary on approaching the appellant-university since they were still working with the e_mployer. 42 persons including the respondent employees did not approach the appellant. Respondents filed applications E for arrears of salary. Appellant contended that the respondents were not in service but gainfully employed elsewhere when reference was made or award was passed. However, Labour Court directed their regularisation and payment of arrears of salary. High Court upheld the orc!er. Hence the present appeal. F ## Disposing of the appeal, the Court. HELD: The submission that many employees were taken back into service without back wages and respondent Nos. I to 8 should also be given the same treatment is fair, reasonable and justifiable. Therefore, the G appellant.-University is directed to immediately reinstate respondent Nos. I to 8 without any back wages, however, they shall be entitled to increments etc. after the reinstatement and they shall also be entitled for pensionary benefits and continuity of service. 1389-D-FI H 387 388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4196 of2006. From the Judgment and Order dated 29. 7 .2005 of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Wirt Petition Nos. 1277(M/S), 1274 (MIS), 1275 (MIS), 1276 (MIS), 1278 (MIS), 1279 (MIS), 1280 (MIS), and 1281 (MIS), of 2002. B Vijay Hansaria and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the Appellants. Meenakshi Arora for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c ## DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted. Heard Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applellant-University and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents. D One hundred seventy employees working in the cafeteria of the students hostel of the applellant-University raised an industrial dispute seeking regularisation. The Labour Court in its award dt. 19.9.1995 held that the employees working in the cafeteria were the employees of the University and were entitled to the benefits of regular employees. The Labour Court directed E regularisation of 170 employees from the date of the order. The University filed the writ Petition before the High Court of Allahabad challenging the aforesaid award. The High Court by its Judgement dt. I 0-08-2000 dismissed the appeal of the applellant and directed regularisation of the services of the employees in terms of the awared of the Labour Court and payment of F arrears of salary in 12 instalments. This court gave the aforesaid direction on the basis that about 170 employees were still working in the cafeteria. The appellant issued an office order asking the employees to complete formalities for regularization by furnishing service details in the prescribed proforma. 128 employees submitted the prescribed proforma and their services are regularised and difference in the salary was paid as per the award. 42 persons G including the 8 respondents herein according to the appllant did not approach for regularisation nor they filled up the prescribed proforma seeking regularisation. The appellant filed an application before this Court for clarification to the effect that the judgment would not apply to those who left · the cafeteria of the University prior to the date of award. This Court dismissed H the I.A. by stating that no clarification is required in the matter. Respondent .. ## G.B. PANT UNIVERSITY 1·. GOVIND BALLABH PANDEY [AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.] 389 Nos. I to 8 herein filed applications under Section 6H of the UP Industrial A Dispute Act, 1947 seeking recovery of arrears of salary. The claim of all the respondents comes to Rs. 23J9, 738/-. The University filed their reply _inter a/ia_ st,:'.:ig that the respondents were not in service when reference was made or award was passed and were qainfully employed elsewhere. The Labour Court directed that the respondents be employed on regular basis and B the arrears of salary be paid rejecting the contention of the University on the ground that the University has not raised these issues before this Court. The High Court dismissed the writ Petition by holding that the University has not . taken the objection regarding respondents leaving their job in the first round of litigation. This Court issued notice in the SLPs and granted interim stay. c We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the judgment which is impugned in this appeal. At the time of argument, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that out of 42 persons, many employees were taken back into service without back wages and respondent Nos. I to 8 herein should also be given the same treatment. Although this request is opposed by the counsel for the appellant-University, D we feel that the request made by the learned counsel for the respondents is fair, reasonable and justifiable. We, therefore, direct the appellant-University to immediately reinstate respondent Nos. I to 8 herein within one month form the date of receipt of this order. We make it clear that the relief now granted shall be confined only to respondent Nos. I to 8 who are before us. E We also make it clear that that the reinstatement would be without any back wages. However, respondent Nos. I to 8 shall be entitled to increments etc. after the reinstatement and they shall also be entitled for pensionary benefits and continuity of services. In other words, respondent Nos. I to 8 shall not be entitled for any increment during the period they were out of employment. F This Judgement shall not be quoted as a precedent by any other employee. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of. There shall be orde; as to costs. N.J. Appeal disposed of.