JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Narain, learned counsel under the order of this Court dtd. 13/2/2024 as Amicus Curiae for the petitioner, Mr. Prabhakar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Mr. Varun Singh holding the brief of Mr. Kartikeya Saran for respondent no.4 and Mr. Jata Shankar Pandey appearing on behalf of respondent no.5.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Central Distilleries and Breweries Limited was a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 40 Community Center, Basant Lok, New Delhi and having its manufacturing unit at Kankarkheda, Meerut. In the year 1994, Central Distilleries & Breweries Limited was taken over by Shaw Wallace Company Limited, which was also registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Mumbai. Shaw Wallace Company Limited was taken over by respondent no.4 / M/s Distilleries & Beverage Limited, Meerut. Petitioner was an employee of Central Distilleries & Breweries Limited and later on became employee of respondent no.4-M/s United Spirits Limited Meerut. A memorandum of settlement was entered on 8/10/1999 between the Central Distilleries and Breweries Limited and staff member for revision of pay scale/ grade and other service benefits as well as allowance etc. w.e.f. 1/9/1998 to 31/8/2003. The aforementioned memorandum of settlement was registered on 4/11/1999, under Sec. 6-B (Settlement outside conciliation proceeding) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1947"). Another memorandum of settlement was entered on 28/10/2004 for period of five years w.e.f. 1/9/2004-31/8/2009, which was also registered on 4/4/2005, under Sec. 6-B of the Act of 1947. Petitioner initially filed an application dtd. 9/5/2005, under Sec. 6-H (1) of the Act of 1947 for recovery as per settlement dtd. 8/10/1999. The aforementioned application remained pending before the authority for long period, accordingly, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.61580 of 2008 before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 6/2/2009 on the ground that petitioner's application was not addressed to the competent authority under Sec. 6-H (1) of the Act of 1947. Petitioner filed another application dtd. 6/2/2009, under Sec. 6-H (1) of the Act of 1947 before competent authority as per the settlement dtd. 8/10/1999. The aforementioned application dtd. 6/2/2009 was contested by respondent no.4, accordingly, respondent no.3 vide order dtd. 10/8/2010 rejected the petitioner's application on the ground of the petitioner is not signatory on settlement deed dtd. 8/10/1999. Petitioner filed a review / recall application dtd. 16/11/2011 before respondent no.3 to recall the order dtd. 10/8/2010, which was allowed vide order dtd. 22/5/2015 and by subsequent order dtd. 30/5/2015, a recovery certificate for Rs.1,91,610.00 was issued by respondent no.4. Respondent no.4 filed a recall application dtd. 15/6/2016 to recall the order dtd. 22/5/2015 and 30/5/2015. The aforementioned application was rejected vide order dtd. 14/7/2015. The aforementioned orders dtd. 24/5/2015, 30/5/2015 & 14/7/2015 were challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.40809 of 2015, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dtd. 20/8/2018. Respondent no.4 paid Rs.1,91,610.00 to the petitioner after passing of the judgment dtd. 20/8/2018. Petitioner filed an application dtd. 26/11/2018 under Sec. 6-H (1) of the Act of 1947 for recovery of Rs.1,88,642.00 as well as recovery of Rs.82,721.00 accrued w.e.f. 1/9/2003-30/9/2008 & 1/9/2003-30/9/2008 respectively as per memorandum of settlement dtd. 8/10/1999 as well as memorandum of settlement dtd. 28/10/2004. The aforementioned application was decided by respondent no.4 vide order dtd. 28/10/2020 directing the authorities to pay Rs.2,71,403.00 (Rs.1,88,642.00+Rs.82,721.00) to petitioner. Respondent no.4 filed a review application dtd. 4/11/2020 to recall the order dtd. 28/10/2020 passed by respondent no.3 which was allowed under the impugned order dtd. 10/2/2021 on the ground that memorandum of settlement dtd. 28/10/2004 is not applicable on petitioner as petitioner is not signatory on the settlement deed dtd. 28/10/2004. Petitioner represented the matter before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and District Magistrate, Meerut against the impugned order dtd. 10/2/2021, accordingly, respondent no.3 vide impugned order dtd. 30/9/2021 rejected the application dtd. 29/6/2021 filed by the petitioner, hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner for the following reliefs:

(3.) This Court vide order dtd. 6/1/2022 entertained the matter and stayed the operation of the impugned order dtd. 10/2/2021 and 30/9/2021 as well as directed learned counsel for respondent no.5 / Assistant Labour Commissioner, Meerut to appear in person before this Court.