HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 24689 of 2015 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Ayush Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri H.P. Dube, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Aalok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for contesting-respondent. 2. It is not under much dispute that contesting-respondent was terminated on 05.09.1987 from the post of Conductor by petitioner. An industrial dispute was referred and finally Labour Court vide an award dated 01.11.1999 held that termination was bad in law and following direction was passed: "15. मैं पंचाट पािरत करता हूँ िक श्रिमक को सेवा से मुक्त िकया जाना अवैधािनक और अनुिचत है। श्रिमक को पुनः उसी पद तारतम्यता सिहत और समस्त बकाया देयों के साथ सेवा में रखा जाये और प्रवादी रू० 200/- वाद व्यय वादी को देंगे।" 3. Aforesaid award was challenged at behest petitioner by way of filing Writ C Nos. 36487 of 2000 and 29051 of 2006. Said writ petitions were finally disposed of vide order dated 05.11.2012 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: "I do not fully agree with the finding of the labour court. Firstly when no party had led any evidence, domestic inquiry could not be held to be unfair. No presumption of unfairness can be attached with domestic inquiry. If the workman asserts that the domestic inquiry was not fair burden is upon him to prove the same. Secondly, both the parties were at fault for not adducing any evidence before the labour court. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : S.K. Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Aalok Kumar Srivastava, C.S.C., Hanuman Prasad Dube, Vipul Dube U.P.S.R.T.C. Thorugh Reginal Manager .....Petitioner(s) Presiding Officer Addl. Labour Commissioner U.P. And 3 Ors. .....Respondent(s) In any case, in my opinion under no circumstances more than 50% backwages could be awarded. Even though in normal course matter would have required remand, however, at this late stage I do not consider it appropriate to adopt the said course. Workman must be 55 years of age at present as per his age given in the counter affidavit filed in the first writ petition. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary and some time even if the order challenged suffers from illegality still in the interest of the justice writ Court can refuse to exercise the jurisdiction and set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the order of reinstatement passed by the labour court is not set aside. Out of the deposited amount workman as is stated to have recovered 50% of the same. It is directed that no further amount shall be payable to the workman as backages. The remaining 50% amount which is still in deposit shall at once be returned to the petitioner with the interest which may have actually accrued thereupon if the same was kept in some interest bearing account. However, if the remaining 50% of the deposited amount has also been recovered by the workman after furnishing security in terms of stay order dated 23.5.2006 passed in Second writ petition then an application may be filed in these writ petitions for suitable modification of this judgment. Both the writ petitions are accordingly, disposed of." 4. Contesting-respondent was allowed to re-join on 01.07.2001 and 50% of amount deposited with Labour Court was paid to contesting respondent alongwith due interest. Contesting-respondent initiated a proceeding under Section 6-H(1) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for recovery of amount of Rs. 9,59,423/- that his salary on re- joining was fixed on lower scale. 5. A copy of application is on record. The contents of it does not based on any determination by petitioner though a chart is prepared essentially on ground that according to contesting-respondent his salary has to be fixed on higher pay scale on basis of averments mentioned in paras 15, 18, 19 and 20 of the application, though are not very specific. said paragraphs are reproduced hereinafter: "15. यह िक प्राथीर् ने जो आर० डी० िववाद प्रस्तुत िकया था उसमें सेवायोजको द्वारा एक चाटर् प्रस्तुत िकया गया था िजसमें 950 का स्के ल लागू करते हुये वषर् 96 मे 3425/- मूल वेतन पर WRIC No. 24689 of 2015 2 िफक्शेसन िकया गया और 2000 में 3725/- का वेतन िफक्स िकया गया और यह वेतनदर प्राथीर् को प्राप्त हो चुका है। 18. यह िक यही प्रितवादी प्रितष्ठान में यह भी व्यवस्था रही है िक जो कमर्चारी अपनी 10 वषर् की सेवा पूरी कर लेता है उसे 10 साला बाद वेतनमान एवं 20 साल सेवा करने का 20 साला उच्च वेतनमान िदया जाता है और वतर्मान समय में ए०सी०पी० की भी सुिवधा कायर्रत कमर्चािरयों को दी जा रही है िजसका भी लाभ प्राथीर् को नही िदया जा रहा है िजसका िक वह पाने का अिधकारी है। 19. यह िक प्राथीर् का स्थानान्तरण गढमुक्ते श्वर से गोरखपुर िडपो में िदनांक 20.08.04 द्वारा िकया गया जहाँ पर िदनांक 15.09.04 को कायर्भार ग्रहण िकया और तब से प्राथीर् लगातार कायर् करता चला आ रहा था प्राथीर् को पुनः सेवायोजको द्वारा िदनांक 12.7.12 से बुिकग क्लकर् के पद पर पदोन्नित करके गोरखपुर िडपो में कायर् िलया जा रहा है जहां प्राथीर् कायर्रत है। 20. यह िक प्राथीर् ने िदनांक 15.09.04 से लेकर 30.04.13 तक की अविध में जो वेतन प्राप्त िकया है उसका िववरण तथा सेवायोजक द्वारा जो 3050 रू० का स्के ल लागू िकया गया जबिक उसके पूवर् 2000 में ही प्राथीर् का स्के ल 3725 था ऐसी दशा में प्राथीर् अन्तर वेतन की धनरािश पाने का पूणर् अिधकारी है।" 6. Petitioner has filed objection to said application and denied calculation in entirety. Even it was stated that in case of any discrepancy in fixation of salary occur that will be calculated. For reference para 11 and 12 of reply filed by petitioner, being relevant, are reproduced hereinafter: "11. यह िक वाद पत्र का पैरा 20 असत्य, िनराधार व भ्रामक है अतः अस्वीकार है। वादी को माननीय न्यायालय के आदेशानुसार ज्वाइन करा िलया गया और उसके पद के अनुसार स्के ल में िनधार्रण कर वेतन व अन्य पावनों का भुगतान िकया गया है। वादी के वेतन िनधार्रण व अन्य पावनों का भुगतान जो िकाय गया है उसके सम्बन्ध में प्रितवादी द्वारा समीक्षा व छानबीन की जा रही है यिद वादी का कोई पावना या अन्तर पावना शेष पाया जायेगा तो िनयमानुसार उसके भुगतान की कायर्वाही की जायेगी। 12. यह िक वाद पत्र का पैरा २ व चाटर् असत्य, िनराधार, भ्रामक, मनमाना व कानून िवरूद्ध है िजसे प्रितवादी अस्वीकार करता है। किथत चाटर् में वादी ने अपना वेतन दर आिद मनमानी तरीके से बढ़ा चढ़ा कर प्रस्तुत िकया है।" 7. Labour Court vide an order dated 31.01.2015 determined the amount towards arrears as per the chart given by contesting-respondent, i.e., Rs. 9,59,423/-. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that when award was challenged before this Court, it was modified to the extent that order of reinstatement was not interfered and WRIC No. 24689 of 2015 3 so far as backwages are concerned, it was limited to 50% of amount already deposited and admittedly said 50% amount has already been paid to contesting-respondent. The relevant part of said order is already reproduced in para 2 of this order. 9. The claim set up by contesting-respondent was essentially based on alleged irregularity in determination of due pay scale and it was disputed by petitioner, i.e., Employer. It is well settled that when demand was disputed, no order can be passed under Section 6-H(1) of Act. The Court also takes note that during pendency of proceedings salary of contesting-respondent was fixed by an office order dated 29.10.2013, however, it not on record, whether said document was placed before Labour Court or calculation made by contesting-respondent was entirely based on that document. It is also not on record, whether said document was completely relied by petitioner or not. 10. In aforesaid circumstances and in the light of a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Abhai Pratap Singh and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2019:AHC:86649 since calculation was highly disputed, therefore, order impugned cannot be sustained. Accordingly, impugned order dated 31.01.2015 is set aside and matter is remitted to Labour Court to pass a fresh order. 11. On remand, the Labour Court will consider, whether document placed by petitioner, i.e., determination of salary by office order dated 29.10.2013 is an admitted position or not. If is so, then further proceedings can take place in accordance with law. The Labour Court will take all endeavour to conclude proceedings preferably within a period of six months from today. Fresh determination of Labour Court will be based on pleadings including objection, if any, by petitioner on maintainability. 12. With aforesaid observations, directions and liberty, this writ petition is disposed of. September 23, 2026 AK WRIC No. 24689 of 2015 4 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad