In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a long-pending writ petition filed by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (U.P.S.R.T.C.), mandating it to pay substantial arrears of wages to the heirs of a deceased conductor, Hari Shankar Verma, whose service termination was controversially overturned by a Labour Court. The case highlights the court’s stance on enforcing compliance with its orders and ensuring that violations do not go unpunished.
Background of the Case:
The case, titled U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Hari Shankar Verma (Writ-C No. 33663 of 2007), traces its origins back to the late 1980s. Hari Shankar Verma, who was employed as a conductor by U.P.S.R.T.C. since 1980, faced disciplinary action in 1991. He was accused of allowing passengers to travel without tickets on two occasions in 1988 and 1989. Following an internal inquiry, the corporation dismissed Verma from service on April 11, 1991.
Verma contested his dismissal, raising an industrial dispute that led to a referral to the Labour Court, Ghaziabad. After reviewing the case, the Labour Court ruled in Verma’s favor, ordering his reinstatement with 50% back wages and withholding two annual increments permanently. The U.P.S.R.T.C., dissatisfied with the Labour Court’s ruling, approached the Allahabad High Court in 2007, seeking to overturn the award.
Legal Issues Involved:
The primary legal issues in the case revolved around the validity of the disciplinary action taken against Verma and the Labour Court’s decision to reinstate him. U.P.S.R.T.C. argued that Verma was habitually negligent and that the Labour Court had overlooked critical evidence of his misconduct. In contrast, Verma’s defense argued that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in an arbitrary manner and that the Labour Court’s decision was just.
Another crucial legal issue was the corporation’s non-compliance with the High Court’s interim order dated July 26, 2007, which stayed the execution of the Labour Court’s award, provided the U.P.S.R.T.C. complied with Section 17-B of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. This provision mandates the payment of wages to the dismissed employee during the pendency of the litigation. However, the corporation failed to reinstate Verma or pay his wages as directed, a failure that ultimately played a significant role in the court’s final decision.
Decision of the Court:
The judgment, delivered by Justice Chandra Kumar Rai on August 23, 2024, emphasized the importance of adhering to court orders. Justice Rai observed that “an order passed by a competent court, interim or final, has to be abided without any reservation, and if such order is violated, the Court may refuse the party violating such order to hear him on merit,” citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Prestige Ltd. v. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449.
Given that U.P.S.R.T.C. did not comply with the court’s interim order to reinstate Verma or pay his wages, and in light of Verma’s subsequent death in 2015, the court dismissed the corporation’s petition. The court directed U.P.S.R.T.C. to release 50% of the back wages due to Verma from the date of his termination until July 26, 2007, and full wages from that date until his death on September 3, 2015, within specified periods. Failure to comply would result in an additional interest penalty of 6% per annum on the arrears.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition and directed U.P.S.R.T.C. to pay arrears with the potential for interest penalties if the payments are delayed.
Case Details:
– Case Title: The U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Hari Shankar Verma
– Case Number: Writ-C No. 33663 of 2007
– Bench: Justice Chandra Kumar Rai
– Lawyers for Petitioner: Vivek Mishra, Ayush Mishra, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Ramanuj Pandey, Sunil Kumar Misra
– Lawyers for Respondent: Dinesh Chandra Srivastava, Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Lalit Kumar, S.C.
