# Amar Kumar Pandey v. Ram Ganga Command, Kanpur & Others

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1322
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-10-12
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10323 of 1995
- **Bench:** B. Amit Sthalekar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amar-kumar-pandey-v-ram-ganga-command-kanpur-others-42395
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947-Section
6(6)-Back Wagers-Labour Court while
reinstating petitioner-granted award of
back wager-from the date of first award
to the date of reinstatement-following
the verdict of Apex Court in case of
Devinder
Singh-held-warrant
no
interfered-petition dismissed.

Held: Para-12 and 13

Be that as it may, the Labour Court while
considering
the entire
case
of
the
petitioner in the award dated 24.8.1993
and the order dated 15.7.1994 has
recorded all the facts and thereafter
come
to
the
conclusion
that
the
petitioner is only entitled to backwages
for the period from the date of the first
award till date of his reinstatement.
Similar direction has been given by the
Supreme Court in para 28 of the
judgment in the case of Devinder Singh
(supra).

In
the
circumstances,
having
gone
through the award dated 24.8.1993 and
the order dated 15.7.1994 and the
direction given by the Supreme Court in
the case of Devinder Singh (supra), in
3 All] Amar Kumar Pandey V. Ram Ganga Command, Kanpur & Others
1323
my opinion, there is no illegality or
infirmity in the two impugned orders.
Case Law discussed:
2011 (3) ESC 514

## Text

1322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
sloughed off. It will become entirely
consistent only when it ceases to grow."
["The Common Law, Oliver Wendell
Holems P.36 (1881).

150. In view of the above, subject to
observation made in the body of the present
judgment, we answer the question referred
to this Bench as under:-

(i)The issuance of notification under
Section 11 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act
read with Section 21 of the U.P. General
Clauses Act by the Governor, is an
administrative act but it has got trapping of
legislation.

(ii)The impugned notification though
administrative in nature but is violative of
directives
issued
by
the
Central
Government under Rule 8 (4) of the Census
Rules, 1990, as such, barred by Article 246
(1) of the Constitution, hence invalid.

(iii) There is apparent inconsistency in
two Acts namely, Census Act 1948 and the
Rules framed thereunder, and the U.P. Land
Revenue Act a State enactment in the
reference to Section 11 with regard to
creation of district. Both are irreconcilable
and in any case, the conflict cannot be
reconciled, hence during census operation
notification under Section 11 of U.P. Land
Revenue Act cannot be issued and if issued
shall be invalid and void.

The reference is answered accordingly.
The writ petition may be listed before the
Division Bench forthwith for adjudication
of the controversy in terms of answers to the
reference given hereinabove.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10323 of 1995

Amar Kumar Pandey

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Ram Ganga Command, Kanpur & Others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri B.N. Singh
Srti A. Goswami

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947-Section
6(6)-Back Wagers-Labour Court while
reinstating petitioner-granted award of
back wager-from the date of first award
to the date of reinstatement-following
the verdict of Apex Court in case of
Devinder
Singh-held-warrant
no
interfered-petition dismissed.

Held: Para-12 and 13

Be that as it may, the Labour Court while
considering
the entire
case
of
the
petitioner in the award dated 24.8.1993
and the order dated 15.7.1994 has
recorded all the facts and thereafter
come
to
the
conclusion
that
the
petitioner is only entitled to backwages
for the period from the date of the first
award till date of his reinstatement.
Similar direction has been given by the
Supreme Court in para 28 of the
judgment in the case of Devinder Singh
(supra).

In
the
circumstances,
having
gone
through the award dated 24.8.1993 and
the order dated 15.7.1994 and the
direction given by the Supreme Court in
the case of Devinder Singh (supra), in
3 All] Amar Kumar Pandey V. Ram Ganga Command, Kanpur & Others
1323
my opinion, there is no illegality or
infirmity in the two impugned orders.
Case Law discussed:
2011 (3) ESC 514

(Delivered by Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.)

1. By means of this writ petition, the
petitioner is challenging the award of the
Labour Court dated 24.8.1993 and the order
dated 15.7.1994.

2. The facts of the case in brief are
that the petitioner raised an industrial
dispute claiming that he was appointed on
the post of Chaukidar on permanent basis
w.e.f. 17.9.1979 and was posted under the
Soil Conservation Officer-II, Fatehpur. It is
stated that he was appointed by the Member
Secretary of the Ram Ganga Command
(Project). After about a year, the Soil
Conservation Officer-II, Fatehpur lodged a
first information report against the petitioner
for committing fraud and impersonation, in
the police station Kotwali, District Fatehpur
and the police thereafter submitted a
chargesheet in the matter and the case was
registered as case crime no. 2439 of 1983 in
the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Fatehpur.

3. The submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that in view of
this the respondent no.1 terminated the
services of the petitioner by order dated
12.7.1980 w.e.f. 7.6.1980, without giving
any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
His submission further is that subsequently,
he was acquitted in the criminal case
honourably. When the petitioner presented
himself before the respondent no.1 to give
him joining, the respondent no.1 refused to
take the petitioner back in service.
Thereupon the petitioner applied for
conciliation but no settlement could take
place. As such the State Government by
order dated 4.6.1991 referred the dispute to
the Labour Court for adjudication and the
case was registered as Adjudication Case
No. 208 of 1991. According to the
petitioner, he submitted all his documents
and other evidence. The Labour Court by its
award dated 24.8.1993 held the termination
of the petitioner w.e.f. 7.6.1980 to be illegal
and directed the respondent no.1 to reinstate
the petitioner in service but denied him
backwages on the ground that the petitioner
had not been able to state before the Labour
Court, as to whether during the period he
was out of service he had not been gainfully
employed.

4. Thereafter on 6.4.1994, the
petitioner filed a misc. Application 27-B,
under Section 6(6) of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The matter was
contested and the Labour Court thereafter
by its order dated 15.7.1994, awarded
backwages from 24.8.1993 i.e. date of the
award in Adjudication Case No. 208 of
1991 till the date of his reinstatement.

5. I have heard Sri B.N. Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
respondent.

6. Sri B.N. Singh has submitted that
the award dated 24.8.1993, passed by the
Labour Court was never challenged by the
respondent no.1 and therefore, the findings
recorded therein and the direction given
therein had become final. The submission
of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the respondent Department had alleged
that the so called appointment letter was a
fraudulent document and it is on this basis
that a first information report was lodged
against the petitioner. However, he further
submitted that case crime no. 208 of 1991,
was instituted in the court of C.J.M.
1324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
Fatehpur and a chargesheet was issued. In
the said criminal case, the petitioner was
honourably acquitted and therefore, it was
no longer open for the respondent to insist
that the appointment letter appointing the
petitioner
as
Chaukidar
under
the
respondent no.1 was obtained fraudulently
and was forged document. Against the
award given in Adjudication Case no. 208
of 1991, no writ petition was filed by the
respondents and the award of the Labour
Court, therefore was not challenged by the
respondents and the same has attained
finality.

7. The further submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that
once his appointment has been held to be
bad, he is entitled to be reinstated in service
with full backwages as his appointment was
of a permanent nature.

8. In the misc. case under Section 6(6)
of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
the Labour Court has however, only
awarded him backwages from the date of
the first award i.e. from 24.8.1993 till the
date of his reinstatement. The submission of
the learned counsel is that since his
appointment was of a permanent nature and
the order of termination has been held to be
bad, he was entitled to full backwages.

9. I have considered the submission of
the learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as Sri Mata Prashad, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
Even though, the award dated 24.8.1993
had attained finality, however, in my
opinion, the petitioner was not entitled to
full backwages as he was not able to
demonstrate before the court below that
during the period after his termination from
service,
he
had
not
been
gainfully
employed.

10. The Supreme Court in the case
reported in 2011 (3) ESC 514 (SC),
Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Counsel,
Sanaur, while modifying the directions
given in the award of the Labour Court has
directed that the appellant shall be entitled
to wages for the period between the date of
the award and the date of actual
reinstatement. Para 28 of the judgment
reads as follows:

"28. In the result, the appeal is
allowed. The impugned order is set aside
and the award passed by the Labour Court
for reinstatement of the appellant is
restored. If the respondent shall reinstate
the appellant within a period of four weeks
from today, the appellant shall also be
entitled to wages for the period between the
date of award and the date of actual
reinstatement. The respondent shall pay the
arrears to the appellant within a period of
three
months
from
the
date
of
receipt/production of the copy of this
order."

11. In the present case, the petitioner
allegedly is stated to have been appointed
by one Laxhmi Chandra, Member Secretary
of the respondent no.1 but when he was
required to produce the appointment letter,
he stated that his house had caught fire and
the appointment letter was destroyed and
therefore, he could not trace out same. In
this regard a report has also been lodged at
the police station by his wife.

12. Be that as it may, the Labour
Court while considering the entire case of
the petitioner in the award dated 24.8.1993
and the order dated 15.7.1994 has recorded
all the facts and thereafter come to the
conclusion that the petitioner is only entitled
to backwages for the period from the date of
3 All] Sant Lal V. State of U.P. and others
1325
the first award till date of his reinstatement.
Similar direction has been given by the
Supreme Court in para 28 of the judgment
in the case of Devinder Singh (supra).

13. In the circumstances, having gone
through the award dated 24.8.1993 and the
order dated 15.7.1994 and the direction
given by the Supreme Court in the case of
Devinder Singh (supra), in my opinion,
there is no illegality or infirmity in the two
impugned orders.

14. The writ petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13636 of 2011

Sant Lal

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P.
Regularization
of
Daily
Wages
Appointment on Group-D post Rules
2001-Rule
4-Regularization
of
Daily
Wagers-rejection
on
ground-not
completed 240 days continuous workingin the year 1981-out of job for the last
17 years-held-illegal-only requirement
that
should
be
engaged
prior
to
29.06.1991 and be found working on
21.09.2001-Non consideration of these
factors-entire finding violated-quasheddirection for fresh consideration issued.

Held: Para-5

From a perusal of the aforesaid Rule, the
only requirement for consideration for
regularisation is that a person appointed
on daily wage basis should be in
Government Service on or before 29th
June, 1991 and is still continuing in
service
on
the
date
of
the
commencement of these Rules. The
Rules have come into force from 21st
September, 2001. The petitioner's case
for regularisation has been rejected on
the ground that he had not been worked
for 240 days in the year 1981. Rule-4
does not prescribe that a daily wage
person should work for 240 days in a
calender year. The Rule only prescribes
that he should have worked on daily
wage basis on or before 29th June, 1991
and is continuing in service on the date
of commencement of these Rules of
2001.

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

1.

The
petitioner's
claim
for
regularization of his service, was rejected by
an order dated 04.12.2010, against which
the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition.

2. In the impugned order, it has only
been stated that the petitioner was an
employee on daily wage basis in the year
1981 and since, he had not worked for more
than 240 days in a calender year, his
services could not be regularized under the
U.P.
Regularisation of Daily Wages
Appointments on Group- D Posts Rules,
2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of
2001).

3. In the counter affidavit, the
respondents have come out with an
additional stand, namely that the petitioner
had only worked for a limited period in the
year, 1981 and thereafter did not work for