# Allahabad v. The State of U.P. And

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 551
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-04-26
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19156 of 1986
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-40931
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Payment of Wages Act 1936-Section-15whether is the U.P. Cooperative Society
an establishment within the definition of
Section
2
(ii)?
Held-'No'-entire
proceeding
Ex-facie
illegal
without
jurisdiction.

Held: Para 7 & 8

In
Registrar,
Co-operative
Societies,
Allahabad Vs. The State of U.P. And
others, 1997 (75) FLR 356, this Court
held that a Co-operative Society is not
covered under the Payment of Wages
Act. I am in complete agreement with
the aforesaid judgment.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court holds
that the Payment of Wages Act is not
applicable upon a Co-operative Society
formed under the Co-operative Societies
Registration Act 1965. Consequently, the
entire proceedings under the Payment of
Wages Act, was Ex-facie, illegal and
without jurisdiction. Consequently, the
impugned order cannot be sustained and
is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
Case law discussed;
1997 (75) FLR-356

## Text

2 All] Jangipur Sahkari Kraya Vikraya Samiti V. State of U.P. and others
551
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.04.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19156 of 1986

Jangipur Sahkari Kraya Vikraya Samiti
Ltd.

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Mishra
Sri V.N. Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Payment of Wages Act 1936-Section-15whether is the U.P. Cooperative Society
an establishment within the definition of
Section
2
(ii)?
Held-'No'-entire
proceeding
Ex-facie
illegal
without
jurisdiction.

Held: Para 7 & 8

In
Registrar,
Co-operative
Societies,
Allahabad Vs. The State of U.P. And
others, 1997 (75) FLR 356, this Court
held that a Co-operative Society is not
covered under the Payment of Wages
Act. I am in complete agreement with
the aforesaid judgment.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court holds
that the Payment of Wages Act is not
applicable upon a Co-operative Society
formed under the Co-operative Societies
Registration Act 1965. Consequently, the
entire proceedings under the Payment of
Wages Act, was Ex-facie, illegal and
without jurisdiction. Consequently, the
impugned order cannot be sustained and
is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
Case law discussed;
1997 (75) FLR-356

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel representing the respondents.

2. The petitioner is a Society
registered under the U.P. Co-operative
Societies Act 1965. Proceedings under
Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act,
1936, were initiated by the respondent no.
2 against the petitioner for the alleged
illegal deduction of the wages. The
Prescribed Authority passed an order to
proceed exparte and thereafter passed an
order under Section 15 of the Act.

Being aggrieved by the said orders,
the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition.

3. The short submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is, that
the Payment of Wages Act, is not
applicable upon the petitioner's society,
inasmuch as, it is neither a factory nor a
railway or an establishment and therefore,
the petitioners are not covered under the
provisions of the Payment of Wages Act.
Consequently, the authority had no
jurisdiction
to
proceed
against
the
petitioner.

Sub-Section [4] of Section 1 and Sub
Section [5] of Section 1 of the Act reads
as under:

"1.(4) It applies in the first instance to the
payment of wages to persons employed in
any [ factory, to persons] employed
(otherwise than in a factory) upon any
railway by a railway administration or,
either
directly
or
through
a
subcontractor, by a person fulfilling a
contract with a railway administration,
552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
[and to persons employed in an industrial
or other establishment specified in subclauses (a) to (g) of clause (ii) of Section
2].

1.(5)The State Government may, after
giving three months' notice of its intention
of so doing, by notification in the Official
Gazette, extend the provisions of [this
Act] or any of them to the payment of
wages to any class of persons employed in
[any
establishment
or
class
of
establishments specified by the Central
Government or a State Government under
sub-clause (h) of clause (ii) of section 2] :

Provided that in relation to any such
establishment owned by the Central
Government, no such notification shall be
issued except with the concurrence of that
Government."

4. From a perusal of the aforesaid,
the Act applies to person employed in a
factory, or in a railway or in such other
establishment contemplated under Section
2 of the Act, namely,

"2.(ii) "Industrial or other establishment"
means-any -

(a) tramway service, or motor transport
service engaged in carrying passengers
or goods or both by road, for hire or
reward.

(aa) air transport service other than such
service belonging to, or exclusively
employed in the military, naval or air
forces of the union or the Civil Aviation
Department of the Government of India;]

(b) dock, wharf or jetty;

(c)
inland
vessel,
mechanically
propelled;]

(d) mine, quarry or oilfield ;

(e) plantation ;

(f) workshop or other establishment in
which articles are produced, adapted or
manufactured, with a view to their use,
transport or sale ;

(g) establishment in which any work
relating to the construction, development
or maintenance of buildings, roads,
bridges
or
canals,
or
relating
to
operations reconnected with navigation,
irrigation or the supply of water, or
relating to the generation, transmission
and distribution of electricity or any other
forms of power is being carried on."

5. The aforesaid provisions includes
tramway service, or motor transport
service engaged in carrying passengers or
goods or both by road, for hire or reward ;
air transport service other than such
service belonging to, or exclusively
employed in the military, naval or air
forces of the union or the Civil Aviation
Department of the Government of India ;
dock, wharf or jetty; inland vessel,
mechanically propelled ; mine, quarry or
oilfield ; plantation ; workshop or other
establishment
in
which
articles
are
produced, adapted or manufactured, with
a view to their use, transport or sale ; or
such establishment which relates to the
constructions,
development
or
maintenance of buildings, roads, bridges
or canals, or relating to operations
connected with navigation, irrigation or
the supply of water, or relating to the
generation, transmission and distribution
of electricity or such other establishments
2 All] Smt. Asharfi Devi V. State of U.P. and others
553
or class of establishment which the
Central
Government
or
a
State
Government
notifies
in
the
official
Gazette.

6. From the aforesaid provision, it is
clear that the petitioner's society is not
covered
under
the
definition
of
establishment nor could it be called an
industrial establishment. Further, nothing
has been brought on record by the
respondents to show that any notification
has been issued including a society as an
establishment covered under the Payment
of Wages Act.

7. In Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Allahabad Vs. The State of
U.P. And others, 1997 (75) FLR 356,
this Court held that a Co-operative
Society is not covered under the Payment
of Wages Act. I am in complete
agreement with the aforesaid judgment.

8. In view of the aforesaid, this
Court holds that the Payment of Wages
Act is not applicable upon a Co-operative
Society formed under the Co-operative
Societies
Registration
Act
1965.
Consequently, the entire proceedings
under the Payment of Wages Act, was Exfacie, illegal and without jurisdiction.
Consequently, the impugned order cannot
be sustained and is quashed. The writ
petition is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.04.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12764 of 1986

Smt Asharfi Devi

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava
Sri Neeraj Agarwal
Sri Rama Kant Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act 1960-4-A-Determination of
irrigated and un-irrigated plots in the
relevant year-if part of holding irrigatedwhole plots can be treated to be
irrigated-as approved by the Apex Court
in Abai Ram's case.

Held: Para 4

There
were
different
variations
in
different
years.
Prescribed
authority
rightly held that as the variations were
different i.e. in some year only in 10
Bighas two crops were not grown and in
some year in about 25 Bighas two crops
were not grown hence it meant that
nature of the soil was such that if efforts
had been made then entire plot could
have yielded two crops.
Case law discussed:
1978 AWC-577
1979 ALJ-1113
AIR 1990 SC-477

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.