http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4196 of 2006

PETITIONER: G.B. PANT UNIVERSITY                            

RESPONDENT: GOVIND BALLABH PANDEY & ORS.              

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/09/2006

BENCH: Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN & A.K.MATHUR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.19129-19136 of 2005)  Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN, J.  

       Leave granted.         Heard Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the  appellant-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 appellant-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  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 judgment dt.10.08.2000 dismissed the  appeal of the appellant and directed regularisation  of the services of the  employees in terms of the award of the Labour Court and payment of 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 were  regularised and difference in the salary was paid as per the award.  42 persons  including the 8 respondents herein according to the appellant 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  the I.A. by stating that no clarification is required in the matter.  Respondent  Nos. 1 to 8 herein filed applications under Section 6H of the UP Industrial  Dispute Act, 1947 seeking recovery of arrears of salary.  The claim of all the  respondents comes to Rs.23,39,738/-.  The University filed their reply inter alia  stating that the respondents were not in service when reference was made or  award was passed and were gainfully employed elsewhere.  The Labour Court  directed that the respondents be employed on regular basis and the arrears of  salary be paid rejecting the contention of the University on the ground that the  University has not raised these issues before this Court.  The High Court  dismissed the Writ Petition by holding that the University has not taken the  objection regarding respondents leaving their job in the first round of  litigation.  This Court issued notice in the SLPs and granted interim stay.           We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have  perused the judgment which is impugned in this appeal.  At the time of  argument, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that out of 42  persons, many employees were taken back into service without back wages  and respondent Nos. 1 to 8 herein should also be given the same treatment.   Although this request is opposed by the counsel for the appellant-University,  we feel that the request made by the learned counsel for the respondents is  fair, reasonable and justifiable.  We, therefore, direct the appellant-University

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

to immediately reinstate respondent Nos. 1 to 8 herein within one month from  the date of receipt of this Order.  We make it clear that the relief now granted  shall be confined only to respondent Nos. 1 to 8 who are before us.  We also  make it clear that that the reinstatement would be without any back wages.   However, respondent Nos. 1 to 8  shall be entitled to increments etc. after the  reinstatement and they shall also be entitled for pensionary benefits and  continuity of service.  In other words, respondent Nos.1 to 8 shall not be  entitled for any increment during the period they were out of employment.           This Judgment shall not be quoted as a precedent by any other  employee.         With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of.  There shall be  no order as to costs.