EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION DIVISION ELECTRICITY BOARD MATHURA Vs. KAILASH CHANDRA GAUTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 (hereinafter referred, to as workman) was working in the U. P. State Electricity Board. His services were terminated on April 3, 1976. The Government of U. P. in exercise of power under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as Act), referred the dispute to the Industrial tribunal (III) Kanpur. Industrial1 Tribunal by its Award dated November 10, 1979 upheld the case of the workman that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year, but rejected the claim by ordering that the workman be paid compensation. The workman, thereafter, filed writ petition no. 3876 of 1980, before this Court, which was allowed on April 28, 1988. This court after holding that the workman would be deemed to be permanent employee of the Electricity Board and termination of his service was unjustified, directed his re- instatement with full back-wages. Against this judgment the Electricity Board filed a Special Leave Petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on January 9, 1989.

(2.) THE workman, thereafter made an application before the Deputy labour Commissioner, who is delegate of the State Government, under section 6-H (1) of the Act for recovering the back-wages as per chart annexed alongwith the application. On this application notices were issued to the Electricity Board by Deputy Labour Commissioner. The Electricity Board filed objection against maintainability of the application under Section 6-H (1) of the Act, on the ground that the amount of back-wages is to be determined which can only be done by Labour Court under section 6-H (2) of the Act, and the application, as such, is liable to be rejected. The Deputy Labour Commissioner rejected the objection of the board and directed for issuance of recovery certificate for recovering back-wages in accordance with the judgment of this court. The Electricity Board, thereafter, filed review application before Deputy Labour Commissioner for reviewing his order ; whereby recovery certificate was issued. The Electricity Board also filed Original Suit No. 368 of 1989 before the Civil Judge, Mathura, for permanent injunction, restraining the state from proceeding with the recovery of back-wages. The Electricity board also moved an application for interim injunction which was rejected by Civil Court on Feb. 9, 1990 by a reasoned order. The Civil Court held that money is liable to be recovered from Electricity Board in accordance with the judgment of this court dated April 28, 1988. The Deputy Labour Commissioner also rejected the review application of the Electricity Board by order dated March 23, 1990 and April 5, 1990 (Annexures 23 and 24 of the writ petition) and recovery certificate dated April 11, 1990 had been issued by this Deputy Labour Commissioner to the Collector, Mathura, for recovering the back-wages of the workman. This writ petition has been filed by the Electricity Board against the aforesaid recovery certificate and proceeding taken in pursuance thereof for recovering the back-wages of the workman.

(3.) AT the admission stage Sri K. P. Agarwal, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the workman and we have heard learned counsel for both the parties and the writ petition is being finally disposed of in accordance with Rules of. the Court.