SOM NATH VOHRA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant petition, petitioner has challenged the validity of the Labour Court award dated 18.12.1995 (Annexure P-2).

(2.) Petitioner is stated to have joined service of the respondent-Rajya Bal Bhawan which is managed by the office of the Director Social Welfare Haryana and Secretary Board, Chandigarh. Petitioner attained age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.10.1991 after rendering 34 years of service. Petitioner has been denied the benefit of leave encashment on the score that there were no statutory provisions. In view of the denial of leave encashment, petitioner submitted an application under Section 33-C-2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") before the Labour Court seeking benefit of leave encashment for 240 days. Labour Court held that petitioner is not entitled by saying that there is no provision for employees of Rajya Bal Bhawan by which benefit of leave encashment could be granted. In the absence of regulation, petitioner is not entitled to leave encashment of 240 days. Labour Court has also taken note of extending the benefit of leave encashment to one Shri Pan Singh in para-12 of the award to the extent that there was resolution passed in favour of Shri Pan Singh. Whereas there is no resolution in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the present petition in challenging the order of the Labour Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court failed to appreciate the Minutes of the 4th meeting of the Standing Committee held on 31.8.1995 wherein item No. 1(2/6) relating to leave rules for the employees, it was decided that the Government pattern of leave should be followed for the employees of Bal Gram excepting House Mothers. It was also submitted that co-employee Shri Pan Singh has been extended the benefit of leave encashment. Thus, the Labour Court has erred in rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 33-C-2 of the I.D. Act.