# Anand Singh v. The P.O., Labour Court, Agra and another

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 495
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-01-16
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Review Application No. 200478 of 2005
- **Bench:** S.U. Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anand-singh-v-the-p-o-labour-court-agra-and-another-40950
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Cancellation appointment-on the post of
clerk/Cashier-11 persons including the
petitioner-who
related
with
Asstt.
Registrar-in
view
of
G.O.
27.7.79
participation of the nominee of Registrar
is must-non participation of Assistant
Registrar-held-committee not properly
constituted-Labour Court award as well
as the earlier judgment of High Courtperfectly justified.

Held: Para 8

It has been mentioned in the award that
the petitioner was brother-in-law of the
then Secretary of the Bank i.e. Sri Girraj
Singh.
The
Secretary
is
ex-officio
member of the Selection Committee
consisting
of
Chairman,
Assistant
Registrar
or
his
nominee
and
the
Secretary.
Petitioner's
brother-in-law,
Girraj Singh, was the member of the
Selection Committee, which selected the
11 persons including the petitioner.
Appointment letter was also issued by
the Secretary Sri Girraj Singh, the
brother-in-law of the petitioner. The
appointment
of
the
petitioner
was,
therefore, illegal only and only on this
ground.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1970 SC-150 relied on.

## Text

2 All] Anand Singh V. The P.O., Labour Court, Agra and another
495
8. In the result, writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 23rd /24th August, 1994,
passed by the Baharas Hindu University is
quashed
and
the
Banaras
Hindu
University
is
directed
to
consider
petitioner's case for regular appointment
under the Dying in Harness Rules afresh
in accordance with law. Petitioner is also
permitted to make a fresh representation
supplementing his earlier representations
annexing therewith all relevant materials.
University will pass appropriate orders on
petitioner's representation in accordance
with law within two months from the date
of production of a certified copy of this
order.

No order as to cost. Petition allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2007

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

Civil Misc. Review Application No. 200478
of 2005
In
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13174 of 1986

Anand Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra
and another

 Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mohd. Asif Khan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri K.N. Misra
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Cancellation appointment-on the post of
clerk/Cashier-11 persons including the
petitioner-who
related
with
Asstt.
Registrar-in
view
of
G.O.
27.7.79
participation of the nominee of Registrar
is must-non participation of Assistant
Registrar-held-committee not properly
constituted-Labour Court award as well
as the earlier judgment of High Courtperfectly justified.

Held: Para 8

It has been mentioned in the award that
the petitioner was brother-in-law of the
then Secretary of the Bank i.e. Sri Girraj
Singh.
The
Secretary
is
ex-officio
member of the Selection Committee
consisting
of
Chairman,
Assistant
Registrar
or
his
nominee
and
the
Secretary.
Petitioner's
brother-in-law,
Girraj Singh, was the member of the
Selection Committee, which selected the
11 persons including the petitioner.
Appointment letter was also issued by
the Secretary Sri Girraj Singh, the
brother-in-law of the petitioner. The
appointment
of
the
petitioner
was,
therefore, illegal only and only on this
ground.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1970 SC-150 relied on.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. Trough this review petition filed
on 5.10.2005 review of judgement dated
31.3.1999 has been sought. The review
petition
is
accompanied
by
delay
condonation application. The ground
taken in the said application is that the
petitioner was not aware of the decision
of writ petition and even after dismissal of
the writ petition he had filed the
supplementary affidavit through another
counsel under the assumption that the writ
petition was pending. The writ petition
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
was decided after hearing learned counsel
for the petitioner.

3. In the counter affidavit to the
review application It has been stated that
the of the learned counsel engaged by the
petitioner i.e. Sri D.P. Singh did not
appear when the matter was earlier heard
and decided even though his name was
also printed in the cause list.

4. The facts of the ease· are that 11
persons, including the petitioner, were
appointed through letter dated 28.4.1980
on temporary basis on the post of
Clerk/Cashier from the date of their
joining by respondent no. 2 Agra Zila
Sahkari Bank Limited. Before any one
could join through another letter dated
21.5.1980 the appointment letter dated
28.4.1980 was cancelled. All the 11
persons concerned challenged the said
order through writ petition in which
initially stay order was granted on
23.5.1980. However, later on writ petition
was dismissed on 15.12.1980 on the
ground of alternative remedy available
under
U.P.
Industrial
Disputes
Act
thereafter
the
concerned
persons
approached state Government for making
reference to the Labour Court. The State
Government made the references and
Labour Court decided the matter. In view
of the interim order petitioner and other
persons were permitted to join. However,
after dismissal of the earlier writ petition
on 15.12.1980 services were terminated.
In the case of the petitioner the matter was
registered before the Labour Court in the
form of Adjudication Case No. 142 of
1982. Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Agra through award dated 24.1.1986 held
that the selection committee, which
selected the petitioner, was not constituted
in accordance with the, relevant rules,
hence appointment was illegal. Ultimately
Labour Court held the cancellation of
appointment order to be valid. The said
award
of
the
Labour
Court
was
challenged through the writ petitiongiving rise to the present review petition.
This Court held that Assistant Registrar
Cooperative Societies was necessary
member of Selection Committee and as he
did not participate in the deliberations of
the
Selection
Committee,
hence
appointment was illegal. Same view had
been taken by the Labour Court. The writ
petition was therefore dismissed on
31.3.1999. The said judgment is sought to
be reviewed through this review petition:

5. It appears that the Labour Court
in the case of some other similarly
situated persons (who were included in
the list of 11 persons appointed through
letter dated 28.4.1980 and who had also
raised the industrial dispute) decided the
matter in favour of the workmenemployees and held that they were
selected by duly appointed Selection
Committee. Against one such award
respondent No.2, Agra Zila Sahkari Bank
Limited filed Writ Petition No.2271 of
1997.
The
said
writ
petition
was
dismissed on 10.3.1998. Copy of the said
judgment has been supplied by the
learned counsel for the applicant. Against
the said judgment respondent no. 2 filed
S.L.P. before the Supreme Court which
was later on converted in to Civil Appeal
No.3466 of 1998 and was dismissed on
27.2.2001. Copy of the said judgement
has also been supplied.

6. In respect of non-participation of
Assistant
Registrar
in
the selection
process the High Court as well as the
Supreme Court held that by virtue of
Government order issued on 27.7.1979
2 All] Anand Singh V. The P.O., Labour Court, Agra and another
497
Assistant
Registrar
was
entitled
to
nominate a person to participate in the
selection Committee on his behalf and as
in the Selection Committee in question a
nominee of Assistant Registrar had
participated,
hence
there
was
no
deficiency in the Selection Committee.

7. Accordingly the mail basis of the
judgement sought to be reviewed through
this review petition is not legally correct.
Unfortunately the judgement in Writ
Petition No.2271 of 1997 even through
delivered about a year before (i.e. on
10.3.1998) was not brought to the notice
of the Hon'ble Judge who dismissed this
writ petition on 31.3.1999. The said
judgment of the High Court has been
approved by the Supreme Court.

However, the matter does not end
completely here.

8. It has been mentioned in the
award that the petitioner was brother-inlaw of the then Secretary of the Bank i.e.
Sri Girraj Singh. The Secretary is exofficio
member
of
the
Selection
Committee
consisting
of
Chairman,
Assistant Registrar or his nominee and the
Secretary.
Petitioner's
brother-in-law,
Girraj Singh, was the member of the
Selection Committee, which selected the
11 persons including the petitioner.
Appointment letter was also issued by the
Secretary Sri Girraj Singh, the brother-inlaw of the petitioner. The appointment of
the petitioner was, therefore, illegal only
and only on this ground.

9. The above being additional
ground for the cancellation of the
appointment
of
the
petitioner,
writ
petition cannot be allowed and order
setting aside the appointment of the
petitioner can not be quashed on the
ground that absence of Assistant Registrar
did
not
invalidate
the
Selection
Committee. In this regard reference may
be made to the Constitution Bench
decision of the Supreme Court in case of
A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India (A.I.R.
1970 S.C.150). In the said case also close
relation of a selected candidate was one of
the members of the Selection Committee.
Even though it was found that he did not
participate in the deliberations of the
Selection Committee when the case of the
concerned appointee was considered, still
the Supreme Court held that mere
presence of a relation in the Selection
Committee was sufficient to vitiate the
selection process in the case of the related
appointee.

10. Accordingly I do not find any
error in the impugned award.

12. Accordingly review petition is
allowed.
Order
dated
31.3.1999
dismissing the writ petition is set aside for
the reason that the point is squarely
covered by the judgment of the Supreme
court in Civil Appeal No. 3466 of 1998
Agra District Cooperative Bank Limited
vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra
dated 27.2.2001. However, writ petition is
again dismissed on the ground that
selection of petitioner was illegal as
petitioner's brother-in-law was one of the
three members of the Section Committee.
Review petition allowed
---------
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.05.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.4800 of 1985

Suresh Prasad Tripathi
...Petitioner
Versus
The Labour Court, Gorakhpur and others

 Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.K. Tripathi
Sri R.S. Misra
Sri H.S.N. Tripathi
Sri T.N. Tiwari
Sri Sudhanshu Pandey
Sri S.K. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.D. Mandhyan
S.C.

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947-Section
4 k-Industry-whether the U.P. Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Samiti an Industry-Held-
'Yes'.

Held: Para 4

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitionerworkman submitted that the view taken
by the labour Court that U.P. ,Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Samiti constituted under
the provisions U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Samiti
Adhiniyam,
1964
is
not
an
industry, is :not correct. In support of his
contention,
learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the decisions of
this Court reported in 2002 (2) A.W.C.,
1637-Rajya
Krishi
Utpadan
Mandi
Parishad and another Vs. Prescribed
Authority, Industrial Tribunal (V), U.P.,
Meerut
and
another and 1997 (2)
U.P.L.B.E.C., 830 - Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Samiti, Anand Nagar, District Gorakhpur
Vs. Industrial Tribunal (II). U.P. at
Lucknow and another wherein this Court
has held that Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Samiti constituted under the provisions
of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi samiti
Adhiniyam, 1964 is an industry and
therefore the petitioner working with the
employer is covered by the definition of
the workman.
Case law discussed:
2002 (2) AWC-1637
1997 (2) UPLBEC-830

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. By means of present writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India,
the
petitioner
Suresh
Prasad
Tripathi has challenged the award of the
Labour Court, Gorakhpur passed in
adjudication case no. 134 of 1982 dated
23rd November, 1984.

2. The following dispute was
referred to by the State Government in
exercise of power under Section 4-K of
the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (In
short 'the Act') to the labour Court for
adjudication.

"Whether the action of the employer
in terminating the services of the
workman Suresh Prasad Tripathi with
effect from 16th July, 1981 is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the
workmen concerned is entitled and with
what details?"

3. The Iabour Court issued notices to
both the workman as well as the
employer. Both the workman and the
employer exchanged their pleadings and
adduced evidence. Before the labour
Court, the employer raised an objection
that since U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Samiti, Barhaj, Deoria is not an industry,
therefore the reference referring the
matter to the labour Court is not covered