NASREEN Vs. UTTARAKHAND JAL SANSTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The late husband of the petitioner Mr. Parvez Mukhtar was appointed as a Clerk Grade-II initially on temporary basis with Jal Kal Vibhag of Nagar Palika Parishad, District Haridwar, which constituted to be the part and parcel of the Nagar Palika Parishad as it then existed. Since having rendered services satisfactorily from 06.02.1970 the Jal Kal Vibhag of Nagar Palika Parishad, Roorkee had regularized the services on 06.08.1971. Consequent thereto, he was posted permanently in the said department of the Nagar Palika Parishad, which has now been on its upgradation declared as the Nagar Nigam, Roorkee. The husband of the petitioner on 10.11.1990 had applied for voluntary retirement due to continuous ill health. The same was accepted by respondent no. 3 on 25.02.1991.

(2.) There had been number of controversies as detailed above including controversy of termination of services of the late husband of the petitioner, but that becomes irrelevant for the consideration of the present Writ Petition, owing to the adjudication, which has already taken place in Adjudication Case No. 435 of 1994, by the Labour Court vide its reference dated 13.09.1994 because ultimately the controversy pertaining to the determination of the services of the late husband of the petitioner on an adjudication of the Labour Court's proceedings the matter went to the Writ Court and the Allahabad High Court by way of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2961 of 2001, 'Pervez Mukhtar vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut and another' vide its order dated 01.10.2001 had set aside the award dated 30.03.1998 and remitted the matter back to the Labour Court for adjudication of the case of the husband of the petitioner in the light of the provisions contained under Retention and Retirement of Servants of Municipal Board Regulation, 1965 meaning thereby a fresh determination was to be made. It is thereafter that on the remand made by the judgment on 01.10.2001 by the Allahabad High Court the matter was decided afresh by the Labour Court, which was put to challenge by the Nagar Palika Parishad in the Writ Petition (M/S) No. 495 of 2003, 'Nagar Palika Parishad, District Haridwar vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Haldwani and others', and Writ Petition (M/S) No. 217 of 2004 'Nagar Palika Parishad, Roorkee District Haridwar vs. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Devpura, Haridwar and others and an another Writ Petition (M/S) No. 520 of 2003, 'Parvez Mukhtar vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Haldwani' on 30.01.2003. All the three Writ Petitions were clubbed together by this Court and in all the Writ Petitions invariably the Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan was also made as a party because of the fact in the meantime during the intervening period the Jal Kal Department of the Nagar Palika Parishad stood merged after its bifurcation with the Jal Sansthan w.e.f. 29.07.2002.

(3.) The Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan and as effect of merger of Jal Kal Department since being the successor department would be bound to bear the assets liabilities of Jal Kal Department also in view of the provisions contained under U.P. Water Supply Sewerage Act, 1975. Therefore, being the successor department the liability to comply with the directions issued by the Labour Court ultimately affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court would automatically fall upon the successor department in view of the provisions contained under Section 18 (C) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which reads as under: