# Adarsh Purva M.V. Salempur v. State of U.P. and

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 491
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2018-06-06
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 24821 of 2012
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/adarsh-purva-m-v-salempur-v-state-of-u-p-and-46585
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Labour Law - Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947 -
Termination - Award - Reinstatement -
Workmen worked continuously for a period of
eight years - Held, the actions of the employer
which stood established before the court below
were not only arbitrary but exploitative - The
railways are model employers and the Court
cannot countenance such unfair trade practices
or exploitative actions against a helpless
workman - High Court found no infirmity in
award. (Para 15 and 17)
B. Labour Law - Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947 -
Aims and objects - Solemn purpose of the
Industrial
Disputes
Act
is
to
prevent
exploitation of workmen - Nomenclature of the
post is not conclusive of the nature of the work
being done by workman. (Para 13)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

## Text

11 All. General Manager, N.C.R. & Anr. Vs. Sri Jagrup & Anr.
491
that on the similar facts and circumstances, in
compliance of the order of a Writ Court dated 3rd
November, 2017 passed in Writ-C No. 17883 of
2008 (Committee of Management Mohan Lal
Adarsh Purva M.V. Salempur Vs. State of U.P. and
others), the authority concerned has passed order
dated 6.6.2018 taking the aforesaid petitioners'
institution into grant-in-aid list, is correct, why the
petitioners' institution could not be taken in the grant
in-aid list by the respondents herein.

20. However, with respect to other deficiencies
like teaching rooms and records of students, the same
has been pointed out for the first time by means of the
counter affidavit and find no mention in the order
impugned, hence the same cannot be pressed for
justifying the impugned order.

21. However, it is made clear that the
petitioners' institution cannot claim the right on the
basis of other institutions, which have been included
in the grant-in-aid list, if by 13th November, 2006 (as
directed by Writ Court vide order dated 11th October,
2017), institution does not have infrastructure and
students, as required by Government Order dated 3rd
September, 2006. The Writ Court had relaxed the last
date of submission of application form and also
recorded that no managerial dispute existed, as on
date of consideration, hence the order impugned is
not justified on said grounds.

22. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, the observations made by
this Court herein above as well as the observations
made by the Writ Court vide order dated 11th
October, 2017 referred to above, this Court finds that
there is clear infirmity in the order impugned passed
by the Director of Basic Education dated 23/24th
May, 2018 rejecting the claim of the petitioners'
institution for taking the institution grant-in-aid list.

23. Consequently, the present writ petition is
allowed. The order impugned passed by the Director
of Education (Basic), U.P. at Lucknow is, hereby
quashed. The Director of Basic Education, U.P.,
Lucknow is directed to consider and decide the claim
of the petitioner-institution afresh taking into
consideration the observations made by this Court
herein above, the observations made by the Writ
Court vide order dated 11th October, 2017 in Writ
Petition No. 44345 of 2009 and Government Order
dated 7th September, 2006. While considering the
claim of the petitioners' institution afresh, Director of
Basic Education (Basic), U.P. at Lucknow, if he so
desires and finds necessary, shall call for reports,
records, material and any other documents from the
district level education authorities as well as from
management of the institution. It shall be open to the
Director of Education (Basic), U.P. at Lucknow to
see as to whether all conditions, as required under the
Government Order dated 3rd September, 2006, have
been fulfilled in the documents submitted on 13th
November, 2006 (the date which have been relaxed
by the Writ Court vide judgment and order dated 11th
October, 2017). He shall pass a reasoned and
speaking order expeditiously, preferably within a
period of three months from the date of production of
a certified copy of this order.

24. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2021)12ILR A491
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ-C No. 24821 of 2012

General Manager, N.C.R. & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Sri Jagrup & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri A.K. Singh, Sri A.K. Gaur, Sri Vimlesh Kumar Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri L.M. Singh, Sri Ajai Kumar, Sri Phool Singh Yadav,
S.C.
492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Labour Law - Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947 -
Termination - Award - Reinstatement -
Workmen worked continuously for a period of
eight years - Held, the actions of the employer
which stood established before the court below
were not only arbitrary but exploitative - The
railways are model employers and the Court
cannot countenance such unfair trade practices
or exploitative actions against a helpless
workman - High Court found no infirmity in
award. (Para 15 and 17)
B. Labour Law - Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947 -
Aims and objects - Solemn purpose of the
Industrial
Disputes
Act
is
to
prevent
exploitation of workmen - Nomenclature of the
post is not conclusive of the nature of the work
being done by workman. (Para 13)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. By the impugned award dated
06.05.2011 the labour court has directed the
petitioner employer to reinstate the respondent
workman in service. The respondent workman
has also been allowed 50% of the backwages
since 24.10.1993 and "All benefits which were
available to him when he was in service".

2. The only submission of Sri Vimlesh
Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the respondents do not have the right to
continue on the post since he was a temporary
workman.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent
workman Sri Phool Singh Yadav has taken the
Court through various finding returned by the
labour court to contend that the petitioner had been
in continuous service from eight years and his
services were arbitrarily terminated. The award of
the labour court was lawful and just.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. The reference made before the labour court
as recited in the impugned award is reproduced
below:

"2. Whether the action of the management of
Nothern Railway Allahabad in not allowing duties
to Sri Jagrup with effect from 24.10.93 is justified?
If not what relief the workman is entitled for?"

6. The following facts were established by
pleadings and evidence before the labour court.
The petitioner had worked continuously for more
than eight 24821years as a gang man from 19841993. He was working in the scale of Rs. 775-1025
with effect from 1988. The petitioner was directed
to join his new place of posting at Ludhiana in
pursuance of the order dated 16.10.1993. The
respondent workman presented himself before the
authorities at Ludhiana and made over the transfer
order to them. Ludhiana authorities directed him to
Jammu
Tawi.
However
both
the
railway
authorities at Ludhiana and Jammu Tawi declined
to permit him to join duties as his name was not in
the transfer list. Thereafter the petitioner ran from
pillar to post but was not allowed to join duties and
effectively stood terminated.

7. The petitioner employer could not dispute
the duty pass issued to the petitioner for the month
of December, 1993. The petitioner/ employer
defended its action on the foot that the petitioner
"had surrendered his services in the year 1992"
which was disbelieved by the labour court.

8. Petitioner employer before the labour
court asserted that the respondent workman
ought to have raised objections before the
superior rail authorities when he was not
permitted to join duties at his place of posting.

9. The labour court found that aforesaid
contradictory stands made by the petitioneremployer, discredited its defence.
11 All. General Manager, N.C.R. & Anr. Vs. Sri Jagrup & Anr.
493

10. The respondent workman appeared
before the labour court and deposed that he had
taken the transfer letter and presented himself
before the railways authorities at Ludhiana. The
railway authorities at Ludhiana declined to
admit him to duties on the pretext that his name
was not in the transfer list and forwarded the
letter to the railways authority at Jammu. The
petitioner went to report to the railways
authorities at Jammu but to no avail.

11. The labour court which had the
opportunity to observe the demeanour of the
respondent workman found him to be a credible
witness. The credibility of the respondent
workman could not be impeached by the
employer. The deposition of the respondent
workman was consistent with the duly proved
documents in the records.

12. On the foot of the aforesaid narrative,
the labour court found that the action of the
petitioner employer in not providing work to the
respondent
workman
with
effect
from
24.10.1993 was unlawful. The termination of his
services was in the likeness of "removal of
service by oral order". The action of the
employer was found to be vitiated. The
petitioner was liable to be reinstated in service.
A direction was issued directing the petitioner to
reinstate the respondent workman in service.

13. The submission of the learned counsel
for Railways that the workman is a casual labour
and not entitled to any relief is misconceived to
say the least. The solemn purpose of the
Industrial Disputes Act is to prevent exploitation
of workmen. Nomenclature of the post is not
conclusive of the nature of the work being done
by workman. It was established by applicable
standards of evidence before the labour court
that the respondent workmen had worked
continuously for a period of eight years prior to
arbitrary and illegal termination of his services.
The defence of the petitioner was rightly found
to be contradictory and evidences were not
found to be worthy of credit.

14. This Court is always reluctant to
substitute findings of fact made upon appraisal
of evidence made the trial court with its own
findings while exercising writ jurisdiction. In
this case the findings of the labour court are
impeccable. The defence of the petitioner/
employer was found to be contradictory and
rightly disbelieved.

15. The actions of the petitioner employer
which stood established before the court below
were not only arbitrary but exploitative. The
railways are model employers and the Court
cannot countenance such unfair trade practices
or exploitative actions against a helpless
workman.

16. The actions of the employer were most
arbitrary and it showed utmost apathy to the
plight of the workman of the lowest class.

16. In the writ petition the petitioners have
asserted that the respondent No. 1 has pleaded
that he was not gainfully employed during the
intervening period. The pleading has been
denied by the workman in the counter affidavit.
It could not be stated on behalf of the petitioner
that this plea was taken before the court below.
The petitioner has failed to bring relevant
pleadings and documents in the record of the
court below in regard to the respondent being
gainfully employed. The pleadings of the
employer are disbelieved.

17. There is no infirmity in the award
passed by the labour court. However in view of
findings made in the preceding part of the
narrative that the action of the employer was
exploitative, this Court holds that the respondent
workman is entitled to 70% of the backwages in
the
interest
of
justice.
Subject
to
this
modification the labour court award is upheld.
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. The writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2021)12ILR A494
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-C No. 25643 of 2021

C/M Rampur Ucchhtar Madhyamik Viddyalaya
& Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri P.K. Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Constitution of India - Article 14 and 21 -
Committee
of
management
-
Single
operation of bank account - Administrative
order
-
Principle
of
natural
justice
-
Applicability - No opportunity of hearing was
given - Failure in recording the reason -
Effect - Held, even in administrative matters,
the reasons should be recorded as it is
incumbent upon the authorities to pass a
speaking and reasoned order - Any order
which has been passed without affording any
opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved
person, is clearly in violation of principle of
natural justice, which is the requirement of
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India. (Para 12 and 18)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

1. Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.; AIR 1991
SC 537
2. L.I.C. Vs Consumer Education and Research
Centre; (1995) 2 SCC 480
3. Mahesh Chandra Vs Regional Manager, U.P.
Financial Corporation & Ors.; AIR 1993 SC 935
4. U.O.I. Vs M.L. Capoor; AIR 1974 SC 87
5. St. of W.B. Vs Atul Krishna Shaw & anr.; 1991
(Suppl.) 1 SCC 414
6. S.N. Mukherjee Vs U.O.I.; AIR 1990 SC 1984
7. Krishna Swami Vs U.O.I. & ors.; AIR 1993 SC 1407
8. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs L.K.
Ratna & ors.; (1986) 4 SCC 537
9. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs
Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni & ors.; AIR
1983 SC 109
10. Rameshwari Devi Vs St. of Raj. & ors.; AIR 1999
Raj. 47
11. Vasant D. Bhavsar Vs Bar Council of India & ors.;
(1999) 1 SCC 45
12. M/s. Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. & anr. Vs U.O.I.
& ors; 2003 AIR SCW 440
13. Secretary, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers,
Govt.of India Vs CIPLA Ltd. & ors.; (2003) 7 SCC 1
14.U.O.I. & anr. Vs International Trading Co. & Anr.;
(2003) 5 SCC 437
15. Raj Kishore Jha Vs St. of Bihar & ors.; (2003) 11
SCC 519
16. St. of Uttranchal Vs Sunil Kumar Negi; 2008 (4)
ALJ. 226
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated
31.07.2021 passed by respondent no.3, which
has been communicated to the petitioners'
institution under the letter of the Finance and
Accounts Officer of the Office of District Basic
Education Officer, Mirzapur dated 31st July,
2021, whereby he has directed the single
operation of bank accounts of the petitioners'
institution. He has also prayed for a mandamus
directing the respondents to consider the
application dated 18.08.2021 made by the
petitioner and not to interfere in the peaceful