CGIT KANPUR LCA Order dated 15-09-2026 on 15 September 2026

Order

Dated: 15.09.2026

The present application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was registered as LCA No. 10 of 2014 upon being moved on behalf of the claimant/applicant. On 16.06.2014 on behalf of applicants an application has been moved entitled as praying therein following relief:

1. The applicant, Mahendra Paswan, has been working in the respondent institution for a long time in the post of Khalasi/Chowkidar (helper/watchman). The work and conduct of the applicant have always been excellent.

2. The applicant's money for overtime and earned leave was outstanding with the respondent establishment, for which the applicant had filed a miscellaneous case, Case No. 401/99, in the Labour Court (IV), Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur. At that time, the order was passed in favour of the applicant, against which the employer filed Writ Petition No. 18297/2001 in the High Court of Allahabad. The said petition was partly allowed. However, the money for the same has not been paid to the applicant.

3. From 01.11.1999 until the petitioner's retirement on 31.07.2011, the petitioner was required to perform eight hours of overtime work daily. Payment for this overtime work has not been made; the said amount remains outstanding against the management.

4. The petitioner was not paid the earned wages, etc., for the said period. At that time, the petitioner's monthly salary was Rs. 13,063.00.

5. The High Court may kindly direct the payment of the outstanding dues and the remuneration for the overtime work. At that time, the petitioner's salary was Rs. 13,063.00 per month. Amount of overtime dated 01.11.1999 to 31.12.2000 367764.00 Rs. Amount of overtime dated 01.01.2001 to 31.12.2010 - Rs. 3135120.00 Amount of overtime dated 01.01.2011 to 31.07.2011 - Rs. 182888.00 Amount of overtime as per order of the Hon'ble High Court - Rs. 68195.00 Deductions from gratuity and earned leave encashment amounts. Rs. 60000.00

6. It is requested that, should there be any error in the calculation, you kindly rectify it. Please also direct the payment of the aforementioned amount, along with interest and the costs of the suit. It would be an act of great kindness. Against that the opposite party filed written statement which is read as under: Total Rs. 38,14,961.00

1. The National Textile Corporation is a Government of India Company under the administrative control of Ministry of Textiles in corporated under Companies Act 1956.

2. The National Textile Corporation Ltd. had nine subsidiaries across the country and one of the subsidiary namely National Textile Corporation U.P. Ltd. had independent Retail Sales Division which had got its separate entity. The applicant Shri Mahendra Paswan was employed in the Retail Sales Division and was getting salary and other benefits from the above named office during the period of employment.

3. The Retail Sales Division of U.P. Kanpur had number of its outlets/Retail Shops in major towns of U.P. and employees engaged in outlets were governed by separate set of service rules. Since Retail Sales Division was incurring continuous losses, so the management of the National Textile Corporation U.P. Ltd closed down all the outlets including its Head Office situated in Kanpur.

4. The present application filed by the applicant is barred by the principle of estoppel. The applicant has already been paid the amount of outstanding dues claimed by him vide application dated 4/10 June, 2014 through Cheque No.041922 dated 10.06.2014 drawn on Union Bank of India, Parmat, Kanpur in presence of witness in full and final settlement and in support of above, the applicant has submitted an undertaking that he has no claim of any kind from the management. A photocopy of the same is annexed for kind perusal of this learned Tribunal.

5. After submitting an undertaking with regard to full and final payment towards his dues, the applicant has got no moral and legal right to agitate again for any kind of his claim. In view of this, the application in question is not maintainable. The applicant filed documentary evidence which is read as under:

1. The applicant's application dated 08.06.2014 to the employer.

2. The applicant's application dated 08.06.2014 to Hon'ble Minister of Textile, Government of India.

3. The applicant's application dated 22.03.2002 to the employer.

4. The applicant's application dated 16.07.2003 to the employer.

5. The applicant's application dated 08.10.2003 to the employer.

6. The applicant's application dated 09.01.2004 to the employer.

7. The applicant's application dated 23.04.1984 to the employer.

8. The applicant's application dated 07.07.2005 to the employer.

9. Charge sheet dated 16.04.2007 issued by the management to Chaukidar Mehfooj Khan.

10. The applicant's application dated 14.11.2006 to the employer.

11. The applicant's application dated 25.05.2005 to the employer.

12. Office order dated 24.09.1992.

13. The applicant's application dated 23.07.2010.

14. The applicant's application dated 03.05.2010.

18. The applicant's duty chart for the period of April, 2009. LCA No, 10 of 2014

19. The applicant's duty chart for the period of August, 2008.

20. The applicant's duty chart for the period of April, 2007.

27. The applicant's duty chart for the period of May, 2006.

28. The applicant's duty chart for the period of April, 2006.

29. The applicant's duty chart for the period of March 2006.

34. The applicant's duty chart for the period of August, 2005.

37. The applicant's duty chart for the period of May, 2005.

38. The applicant's duty chart for the period of April, 2005.

chart for the period of November, 2004.

42. The applicant's duty chart for the period of September, 2004.

43. The applicant's duty chart for the period of August, 2004.

44. The applicant's duty chart for the period of July, 2004.

45. The applicant's duty chart for the period of April, 2004.

51. The applicant's duty chart for the period of April, 2003.

60. The applicant's duty chart for the period of April, 2002.

61. The applicant's duty chart dated 26.02.2002.

62. The applicant's duty chart dated 21.02.2002.

63. The applicant's duty chart dated 22.02.2002.

64. The applicant's duty chart dated 24.02.2002.

68. The applicant's duty chart dated 07.06.2001.

69. The applicant's duty chart dated 05.06.2001.

70. The applicant's duty chart dated 08.06.2001.

71. The applicant's duty chart dated 06.06.2001. In rebuttal the opposite party filed documents which are read as under:

Photocopy of the letter dated 04/10.06.2014 addressed to an official at the National Textile Corporation Limited, Kanpur from the applicant Mahendra Paswan. LCA No. 10 of 2014

It is a settled principle of industrial jurisprudence that proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are in the nature of execution proceedings. The Labour Court can only compute a benefit or amount to which the workman is already entitled under a pre-existing recognized right, an award, or a settlement. Where the very right to claim an amount (such as an extensive 12-year claim of unrecorded daily overtime) is fundamentally disputed, and a valid settlement/undertaking is pleaded by the employer, the burden shifts heavily onto the claimant to establish an enforceable, pre-existing right by adducing cogent oral and documentary evidence. To enable the applicant to discharge this burden and prove his claim, this Court granted ample and sufficient opportunities to the applicant to file and lead his oral evidence. However, despite multiple opportunities, the applicant consistently failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of his case. On the crucial date of hearing, i.e., 03.07.2026, neither the applicant nor any representative on his behalf appeared before this Court. There was no request for an adjournment or any explanation tendered for the non-appearance. Consequently, finding no justification for further protracting a matter pending since 2014, the opportunity for the applicant to file evidence was explicitly closed by this Court on 03.07.2026. Paper number 6/2 as mentioned above and written statement of para 4 shows that the present application filed by the applicant has already been paid the amount of outstanding dues claimed by him vide application dated 4/10 June, 2014 through Cheque No. 041922 dated 10.06.2014 drawn on Union Bank of India, Parmat, Kanpur in presence of witness in full and final settlement and in support of above, the applicant has submitted an undertaking that he has no claim of any kind from the management. Following the closure of the applicant's evidence, the representative for the opposite party/management stated that they did not wish to adduce any oral evidence in view of the complete lack of evidence from the claimant's side. Arguments on behalf of the opposite party were heard, and the case was reserved for orders. In the absolute absence of any oral testimony, affidavit, or documentary evidence from the claimant to substantiate the humongous financial claim of Rs. 38,14,961.00, or to challenge the "Full and Final Settlement" undertaking produced by the management, this Court is left with no material to compute any dues in favour of the workman. The applicant has completely failed to discharge the baseline onus of proving his case.

Resultantly, the present application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is hereby dismissed due to a lack of evidence and prosecution. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance. (Presiding Officer) . 9.24o