2019 (9) TMI 1512 - HC - Central Excise

Settlement of surrender leave salary - petitioner superannuated on 31.05.2016, from the year 2011 onwards, the said practice of surrendering 15 days or 50% of the earn leave per year was done away by the appellants Corporation on account of financial crises - HELD THAT - The action based on the settlement entered into under Section 12(3) of the Act was not available to the respondent/writ petitioner, because the appellants Transport Corporation is citing financial crisis. The learned Single Judge took into consideration the facts placed before him and also noted the circular dated 09.01.2017 and taking note of the fact that there is record to show that the appellants transport corporation pleaded financial crises for non-settling the surrender leave salary, allowed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has rightly gone into the factual position and took note of stand of the appellants corporation as to why earlier they did not permit surrender and allowed the writ petition - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act
- Validity of circular dated 09.01.2017 for surrendering earned leave
- Financial crisis as a reason for non-settlement of surrender leave salary
- Judicial review of the writ petition decision

Interpretation of settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act:
The appeal involved a dispute where the respondent sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash an order and direct the appellants to settle the surrender leave salary. The appellant Corporation argued that the respondent did not surrender leave during service but only after superannuation, citing a circular issued in 2017. The respondent contended that the surrender practice was discontinued due to financial crises, making the settlement under Section 12(3) unavailable. The Single Judge considered the facts, including the circular, and noted the financial crisis plea by the appellants in not settling the surrender leave salary, ultimately allowing the writ petition.

Validity of circular dated 09.01.2017 for surrendering earned leave:
The appellant Corporation claimed that the circular issued in 2017 was not applicable to retired employees for renewing their claim of surrendering earned leave during their service years, as it was meant only for existing employees. The respondent argued that the surrender practice was discontinued due to financial crises, rendering the settlement under Section 12(3) unavailable. The Single Judge considered the circular and the financial crisis plea by the appellants in not settling the surrender leave salary, ultimately allowing the writ petition based on these grounds.

Financial crisis as a reason for non-settlement of surrender leave salary:
The appellant Corporation contended that the surrender practice was discontinued due to financial crises, which impacted the availability of the settlement under Section 12(3) for the respondent. The Single Judge took note of the financial crisis plea by the appellants in not settling the surrender leave salary, ultimately allowing the writ petition based on this reasoning. The judgment referenced a previous case where similar relief was granted, indicating a consistent approach by the court in such matters.

Judicial review of the writ petition decision:
The appeal was dismissed by the High Court, upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge. The High Court found that the Single Judge correctly considered the factual position, including the reasons provided by the appellants for not permitting surrender earlier. The High Court concluded that the appellants did not establish sufficient grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Single Judge, resulting in the dismissal of the Writ Appeal without costs.