PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the orders dtd. 19/12/2005, 13/1/2016 and 29/3/2016, as passed by the respondent no. 2, by virtue of which the respondent no. 2, had sought for a recovery of a sum of Rs.1,82,643.00 from the petitioner on the ground that he has attained the age of superannuation, which was 60 years and even thereafter he had persuaded the respondent to pay the amount of wages, though he retired even much prior to the passing of the award of reinstatement by the Labour Court on 5/9/2011. Hence, the payment which has been received by the petitioner was illegal also was obtained by way of concealment of facts, and that the petitioner was a recipient of an old age pension, on which the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent by placing on record a schedule, which shows the head under which payment is made and the amount of payment made to the petitioner under, "Pension Yojana Vradhavastha Pensionary Vivran".

(2.) As far as the payment of the old age pensionary benefits is concerned, the said old age pension is being paid to the petitioner under the welfare scheme floated by the State Government and it has got no relation, so far it relates to the said payment made to petitioner in pursuance to the award, which was to be made by the employer to the employee, it was altogether an independent payment paid to the petitioner as an old age pension under the Welfare Schemes, floated by the State Government.

(3.) The argument, which has been extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that as far as the order of reinstatement is concerned, which was passed by the Labour Court on 5/9/2016 directing the petitioner to be reinstated without back wages, in fact, he was not reinstated despite of the fact that the award on being challenged by the State of Uttar Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 971 of 2013 'State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Prem' had attained finality by the judgment dtd. 21/3/2014 and ultimately by dismissal of the SLP by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 8/5/2015, but when the petitioner was not reinstated, the petitioner had preferred a proceeding under Sec. 6(H)(1) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for execution of the award.