G.B. PANT UNIVERSITY versus GOVIND BALLABH PANDEY AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 387 · Decided: 19-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

G.B. PANT UNIVERSITY 
A 
v. 
GOVIND BALLABH PANDEY AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 19. 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND A.K. MATHUR,JJ.] 
B 
Labour Laws: 
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Regularisation-Grant of, to several 
employees with difference in salary on the ground that they were in service- C 
Few of the re111aining employees claiming arrears of sala1J~Employers case 
thal e111ployees not in service bu/ gainfi1/ly e111ployed elsewhere when reference 
111ade and award passed directing regularization-Held: Since other similarly 
placed employees taken back into service without back wages, claim of 
employees justifiable-Employees to be reinstated without back wages. 
D 
In terms of the award passed by the Labour Court, which was upheld 
by High Court, services of 128 employees were regularised and were paid 
difference in salary on approaching the appellant-university since they 
were still working with the e_mployer. 42 persons including the respondent 
employees did not approach the appellant. Respondents filed applications E 
for arrears of salary. Appellant contended that the respondents were not 
in service but gainfully employed elsewhere when reference was made or 
award was passed. However, Labour Court directed their regularisation 
and payment of arrears of salary. High Court upheld the orc!er. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court. 
HELD: The submission that many employees were taken back into 
service without back wages and respondent Nos. I to 8 should also be given 
F 
the same treatment is fair, reasonable and justifiable. Therefore, the G 
appellant.-University is directed to immediately reinstate respondent Nos. 
I to 8 without any back wages, however, they shall be entitled to 
increments etc. after the reinstatement and they shall also be entitled for 
pensionary benefits and continuity of service. 1389-D-FI 
387 
H 
388 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4196 of2006. 
B 
c 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29. 7 .2005 of the High Court of 
Uttaranchal at Nainital in Wirt Petition Nos. 1277(M/S), 1274 (MIS), 1275 
(MIS), 1276 (MIS), 1278 (MIS), 1279 (MIS), 1280 (MIS), and 1281 (MIS), 
of 2002. 
Vijay Hansaria and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the Appellants. 
Meenakshi Arora for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted. 
Heard Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of 
the applellant-University and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned counsel appearing 
on behalf of all the respondents. 
One hundred seventy employees working in the cafeteria of the students 
hostel of the applellant-University raised an industrial dispute seeking 
regularisation. The Labour Court in its award dt. 19.9.1995 held that the 
employees working in the cafeteria were the employees of the University and 
were entitled to the benefits of regular employees. The Labour Court directed 
E regularisation of 170 employees from the date of the order. The University 
filed the writ Petition before the High Court of Allahabad challenging the 
aforesaid award. The High Court by its Judgement dt. I 0-08-2000 dismissed 
the appeal of the applellant and directed regularisation of the services of the 
employees in terms of the awared of the Labour Court and payment of 
F arrears of salary in 12 instalments. This court gave the aforesaid direction on 
the basis that about 170 employees were still working in the cafeteria. The 
appellant issued an office order asking the employees to complete formalities 
for regularization by furnishing service details in the prescribed proforma. 
128 employees submitted the prescribed proforma and their services are 
regularised and difference in the salary was paid as per the award. 42 persons 
G including the 8 respondents herein according to the appllant did not approach 
for regularisation nor they filled up the prescribed proforma seeking 
regularisation. The appellant filed an application before this Court for 
clarification to the effect that the judgment would not apply to those who left · 
the cafeteria of the University prior to the date of award. This Court dismissed 
H the I.A. by stating that no clarification is required in the matter. Respondent 
.. 
G.B. PANT UNIVERSITY 1·. GOVIND BALLABH PANDEY [AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.] 389 
Nos. I to 8 herein filed applications under Section 6H of the UP Industrial A 
Dispute Act, 1947 seeking recovery of arre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.