EXECUTIVE OFFICER NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT AND RUPE LAL BALMIKKY SHRI MANGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the legality and validity of the award of the Labour Court, dated 26th December, 2001, published on 23rd January, 2001, passed by the Labour Court, Kanpur in favour of Rupe Lal Balmiky, respondent No. 2, the present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned award, dated 26.12.2000.

(2.) Respondent No. 2 ,(hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was appointed as a sweeper by means of appointment letter dated 29th March, 1954 in Nagar Palika Parishad, Bilhore, district Kanpur Dehat. In the appointment letter the date of birth of the respondent is mentioned as 18th March, 1934. In the statement of deduction of provident fund etc. the aforesaid date of birth finds place. The age of superannuation of such employee is admittedly 60 years. A notice dated 28th January, 1995 was served by the petitioner on the respondent informing that he has already reached the age of superannuation on 31st December, 1994, but illegally continued to work thereafter. It appears that the respondent worked up to 25th February, 1995 and the payment of salary for the period 31st December, 1994 to 25th February, 1995 was sought to be deducted by the petitioner out of the payment tendered to the respondent towards retiral benefits. Being dissatisfied, by the action, the respondent filed an application before the Prescribed Authority/Pargana Adhikari. The Labour Court II (U.P. Kanpur) by its order passed under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, held that the respondent is entitled for the salary for the period he worked namely, 31st December, 1994 to 25th February, 1995 amounting to Rs. 8439.84. The said amount was paid by the petitioner against receipt dated 3rd May, 2000.

(3.) It appears that the respondent raised an industrial dispute and the State Government referred the matter for adjudication. The industrial dispute was to the effect as to whether the employer rightly put off prevented the workman, namely, the respondent w.e.f. 25th February, 1995 in accordance with law. If it is not so the relief to which the workman is entitled?