Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1044 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 respondent no. 2 has filed an application for setting aside the exparte award and that was allowed vide order dated 3rd May, 1997 and the application to recall the order dated 3rd May, 1997 was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 22nd August, 1997. 12. Rule 16 (2) provides that an application to set aside the exparte award can be filed within 10 days of such award. From the pleadings of the parties, it transpires that the factum of sending of notices through registered post has not been denied and it has also not been stated that on which date the respondent no. 2 acquired knowledge of the exparte award. Further the application for setting aside exparte award was filed after 30 days of its publication. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the application filed by the respondent no. 2 to set aside the exparte award was within time or there was a reasonable reason to not apply for the same. 13. The Apex Court, in the case of Grindlays Bank (supra) has held that the Tribunal/court retained its jurisdiction to set aside an exparte award provided the application has been filed within 30 days of its publication. In the case of Sangham Tape Co. (supra), the Apex court has held that once the award becomes enforceable, the Industrial Tribunal or labour court becomes functus officio. 14. Here in the present case, as has been mentioned above, the award was given on 10th February,1995 and it was published on 20th April, 1995 and it was also published on the notice board on 22nd May, 1995, whereas the respondent no. 2 has filed the application for setting aside the exparte award on 25th October, 1996 apparently this was beyond 30 days from the date of its publication i.e. 20th April 1995 or 22nd May, 1995. Section 6- A of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act provides that the award becomes enforceable after 30 days of its publication. The language used in Section 6-A of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act is identical to the language used in Section 17-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. In the cases of Grindlays Bank (supra) and Sangham Tape Co. (supra), the Apex Court has held that once the award becomes enforceable, the Industrial Tribunal or labour court become functus officio. Although in the case of Satnam Verma, (the case cited by respondent's counsel) the Apex Court has held that the labour court has jurisdiction to entertain the application for setting aside the exparte award but the facts of this case are totally different as in the case of Satnam Verma the application was filed prior to the publication of the award and was well within time, therefore, the case cited by the respondent's counsel is distinguishable on facts. 15. Under these facts and circumstances, since the application for setting aside the exparte award was filed after the expiry of 30 days of its publication, therefore it could not be entertained as the Tribunal had become functus officio and lost its jurisdiction to entertain any application. 16. This Court has also taken the same view in the cases of State of U.P Vs. the Presiding Officer Labour Court (II) U.P. Meerut and another 2005 (2) U.P. L.B.E.C. 1751 and 2 008 (118) F.L.R. 922 District Panchayat (Zila Parishad) Kanpur Dehat Vs. Presiding Officer,
3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.State of U.P. and others 1045 Labour Court (IV) Kanpur Nagar and another. 17. In view of that, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 3rd May, 1997 and 22nd August, 1997 passed by Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra (respondent no. 1) are hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. However dismissal of this writ petition will not preclude the respondents to approach the appropriate forum if any available under law against the exparte award. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.10.2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE C.K. PRASAD, C.J. THE HON’BLE DILIP GUPTA, J. THE HON’BLE A.P. SAHI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19101 of 1999 With Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.21965 of 2003. Rishikesh Lal Srivastava …Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & others …Opposite Parties Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Harish Chandra Singh Sri R.K. Ojha Sri O.P. Pandey Sri A.P. Singh Sri S.C. Singh Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Sri R.C. Dwivedi, Sri N.K. Pandey, Sri R.C. Singh Sri Dinesh Dwivedi Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, C.S.C. assisted by Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, Standing Counsel. U.P. Intermediate Education Act-1921- Chapter III Reg.-31- prior approval of dismissal-whether prior approval for awarding punishment of dismissal to a Class 4 th employee is must as contemplated in Regulation 31 held “No” various reasons discussed Practice and Procedure-Law Conflicting view of different D.B. Judgment-the judgment reported in 2006 (3) ESC 1765, 2006(65) ALR 767 and 2000 (1) UPLBEC 707 approved hold correct law. Held: Para -73 Our answer to the questions referred to us are as under: (i) For awarding a punishment as enumerated under Regulation 31 Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 to a Class-IV employee of a institution recognized under the aforesaid Act, no prior approval or sanction from the Inspector of Schools is required. (ii) The Division Bench judgments in the case of Ali Ahmad Ansari Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar [2006(3) ESC 1765 (All)] and Pujari Yadav Vs. Ram Briksh Yadav [2006(65) ALR 767] lay down the correct law in contradistinction to the Division Bench judgment of Principal, Rashtriya Inter College, Bali Nichlaul, District Maharajganj And Others [(2000) 1 UPLBEC 707] and the other judgments to that effect. Case law discussed: [1991 (1) UPLBEC 467], [1998(2) UPLBEC 1101], [2000(1) UPLBEC 707],[2000 (3) E.S.C. 1880 (All.), [2001(1) UPLBEC 487], [2002 (4) ESC 201], [2006(3) ESC 1765 (All) (DB)], (1998)2 UPLBEC 1101, [2000(3) E.S.C. 1880 (All), 1998 Lab IC 1252, (2007) 1 AWC 253, 1981 U.P.L.B.E.C. 135, 1988 U.P.L.B.E.C 123, 1998(3) A.W.C.1940(L.B.), [AIR 2002 SCC 1334], [(1951) 2 All E.R. 839], [AIR 1953 SCC
Page 1 and 2:
3 All] Smt. Katori Devi V. Nawab Si
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
3 All] Kailash Babu Gupta V. State
Page 9 and 10:
3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 11 and 12:
3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 13 and 14:
3 All] Smt. Sadhana Singh V. State
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22: 3 All] C/M, Lok Bharti Inter Colleg
Page 23 and 24: 3 All] Krishan Kumar V. State of U.
Page 25 and 26: 3 All] Smt. Raman Pandey and others
Page 27 and 28: 3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State
Page 39 and 40: 3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of
Page 45 and 46: 3 All] Naik R.K. Mahapatra V. Chief
Page 53 and 54: 3 All] Jafar Khan V. State of U.P.
Page 55 and 56: 3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 61 and 62: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 63 and 64: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 65 and 66: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 67 and 68: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 69 and 70: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 71: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 75 and 76: 3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 99 and 100: 3 All] Matloob Gaur V.State of U.P.
Page 107 and 108: 3 All] Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi V.St
Page 109 and 110: 3 All] Superintending Engineer and
Page 115 and 116: 3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another
Page 123 and 124:
3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another
show all

Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?