HARYANA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of CWP No. 4564 of 1997(O&M) and CWP No.4634 of 1997 as a common question of law and facts arise in these cases.

(2.) The challenge brought by the Haryana Agro Industries Corporation limited, Chandigarh against the order of the Labour Court, Panipat dated Dec. 20, 1996 has to be repelled in the face of the letter dated March 06, 199 This letter reflects the decision of the Board of the Corporation approving grant of privilege of encashment of earned leave of 240 days to its employees. If leave encashment was admissible then the Labour Court committed no mistake in noticing the decision of the Board and allowing 7 months of leave encashment/earned leave in favour of the claimants/respondents. The conditions of service of the petitioners may be governed also by the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation and the Factories Act but the circular-letter recognises the right not only conferred by the Board but statutorily prescribed in Sec. 79(5) of the Factories Act, 1948. The provision reads:

(3.) The Circular-Letter was duly exhibited on the record of Labour Court as Ex. P1. It may be noted that the 2nd respondent worked as a Spray Painter with the Corporation from Aug. 09, 1969 to April 30, 1993 and, therefore, fell in the beneficial scheme of the letter Ex. P1. The rights created by the Circular-Letter eminently became a pre-existing right, vested and accrued to the respondent which could easily be computed in term of money and, therefore, the application under Sec. 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was maintainable and was rightly allowed in part.