State of Tripura Vs. Arati Bala Sarkar (Smt) and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
service - extraordinary jurisdiction - article 226 of constitution of india - husband of respondent while traveling by train fell down and was not seen thereafter - respondent through writ sought relief for making enquiry into circumstances about disappearance of her husband - high court by closing writ directed authority to provide suitable employment or monetary compensation - state approached supreme court - husband of respondent was not employee of state government - respondent's only grievance with regard to enquiry for disappearance - high court under article 226 not to distribute benediction merely because respondent undergoing hardship - appeal allowed. - interpretation of statutes. beneficial legislation: [dr. arijit pasayat & p. sathasivam, jj] held, the concept of liberal interpretation is relevant only when two views are possible. employee's provident funds & miscellaneous provisions act, 1952 [c.a. no. 19/1952] -- section 2(b): [dr. arijit pasayat & p. sathasivam, jj] basic wages held, the term basic wages in section 2 (b) does not include leave encashment. the term basic wage which includes all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave or on holidays with wages in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment can only mean weekly holidays, national holidays and festival holidays etc. in many cases the employee do not take leave and encash it at the time of retirement or same is encashed after his death which can be said to be uncertainties and contingencies. though provisions have been made for the employer for such contingencies unless the contingency of encashing the leave is there, the question of actual payment to the workman does not take place. the amount of contribution cannot be based on different contingencies and uncertainties. the test is one of universality. in the case of encashment of leave the option may be available to all the employees but some may avail and some may not avail. that does not satisfy the test of universality. - in the writ petition respondent 1 sought the relief for making inquiry into the circumstances about the disappearance of her husband and the high court while disposing of the said writ petition has given the following direction :accordingly, we close this writ application but under the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the authority to give some suitable employment or lump sum monetary compensation to this poor lady so that she may live a decent life. we hope and trust that the authority will show sympathy to this poor lady.orders.c. agrawal, j.1. special leave granted.2. respondent 1, even though duly served, has not chosen to appear.3. this appeal is directed against the judgment of the high court of assam, nagaland, agartala bench, agartala dated 5-7-1996 in civil rule no. 88 of 1992 filed by respondent 1. the husband of respondent 1, prafulla chandra sarkar, was a labour sardar in the m.b. tilla, fci godown. it appears that while travelling from gaya to calcutta he fell down from the train and he has not been seen thereafter. in the writ petition respondent 1 sought the relief for making inquiry into the circumstances about the disappearance of her husband and the high court while disposing of the said writ petition has given the following direction :accordingly, we close this writ application but under the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the authority to give some suitable employment or lump sum monetary compensation to this poor lady so that she may live a decent life. this shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this letter. we hope and trust that the authority will show sympathy to this poor lady. 4. having regard to the fact that the husband of respondent 1 was not even an employee of the state government and the only grievance with which respondent 1 came to the high court was with regard to the inquiry into the circumstances in which he had disappeared while travelling from gaya to calcutta, we are unable to appreciate how the high court could give the direction to give suitable employment or lump sum monetary compensation to respondent 1. in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution it is not for the high court to distribute benediction merely because respondent 1, who has moved the court, is undergoing hardship. we are, therefore, unable to uphold the aforesaid direction given by the high court. the appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned direction given by the high court is set aside no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

S.C. Agrawal, J.

1. Special leave granted.

2. Respondent 1, even though duly served, has not chosen to appear.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Agartala Bench, Agartala dated 5-7-1996 in civil Rule No. 88 of 1992 filed by Respondent 1. The husband of Respondent 1, Prafulla Chandra Sarkar, was a Labour Sardar in the M.B. Tilla, FCI Godown. It appears that while travelling from Gaya to Calcutta he fell down from the train and he has not been seen thereafter. In the writ petition Respondent 1 sought the relief for making inquiry into the circumstances about the disappearance of her husband and the High Court while disposing of the said writ petition has given the following direction :

Accordingly, we close this writ application but under the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the authority to give some suitable employment or lump sum monetary compensation to this poor lady so that she may live a decent life. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this letter. We hope and trust that the authority will show sympathy to this poor lady.

4. Having regard to the fact that the husband of Respondent 1 was not even an employee of the State Government and the only grievance with which Respondent 1 came to the High Court was with regard to the inquiry into the circumstances in which he had disappeared while travelling from Gaya to Calcutta, we are unable to appreciate how the High Court could give the direction to give suitable employment or lump sum monetary compensation to Respondent 1. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution it is not for the High Court to distribute benediction merely because Respondent 1, who has moved the Court, is undergoing hardship. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the aforesaid direction given by the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned direction given by the High Court is set aside No costs.