# Brij Raj Pandey and others v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 448
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-06-19
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26121 of 2003
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brij-raj-pandey-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40116
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Sri G.L. Tripathi
S.C.

U.P.
Industrial
Dispute
Act
1947workman-whether
the
enrolled
apprentice can claim protection as a
workman? held- 'No'-person appointed
under Apprentice act 1961 is not a
workman.

Held- Para 5

A person who is enrolled as apprentice in
accordance with the provisions of the
Apprentices act, 1961 cannot claim the
benefit of the workman as stated under
the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
but in the present case, on the facts the
labour court recorded a finding that on
the facts and circumstances of the case,
the workman cannot be said to have
been enrolled as Apprentice because of
non compliance of the provisions of the
Apprentices Act.
Case law Discussed:
1996 (72) FLR 328
1996 (72) FLR 335
1998 (78) FLR 511
1999 LAB IC -1026

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
448
aside and the order of Consolidation
Officer dated 13.5.1970 is upheld.

The
writ
petition
is
allowed
accordingly. Parties will bear their own
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.6.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26121 of 2003

Brij Raj Pandey and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri A.N. Singh
Sri S.K. Chaubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P. Basic Education teachers' service
rules, 1981- Rule 29-Entitlement of
benefit under- age of superannuationPetitioners
attaining
age
of
superannuation on 30.6.2003 i.e. on last
day of academic session-Held, cannot be
permitted to be extended for next
academic session.

Held- Para 3

Admittedly the academic session begins
on 1st July and ends on 30th June. The
said rule provides that in case if a
teacher
attains
the
age
of
superannuation
during
the
commencement of the academic session,
he shall be permitted to continue till the
end of the academic session, he shall be
permitted to continue till the end of the
academic session i.e. till June 30. In the
present case all the petitioners are to
attain the age of superannuation on
30.6.2003. In such circumstances the
benefit of rule 29 of the Rules of 1981
cannot be extended to the petitioners as
they are to retire on the last day of the
academic session. The petitioners cannot
be permitted to be on extended service
from the beginning of the next academic
session.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
with a prayer for a direction to the
respondents that the petitioner may be
treated in service on extension till the end
of the next academic session i.e. upto
30.6.2004.

2. The petitioners are assistant
teachers in the Primary schools. Their
date of birth is 1.7.1943. They are
claiming benefit of Rule 29 of the U.P.
Basic Education teachers service Rules,
1981 which is quoted below:

"Every teacher shall retire from
service in the afternoon of the last day of
the month in which he attains the age of
60 years;

Provided that a teacher who retires
during an academic sessions (July 1 to
June 30) shall continue to work till the
end of the academic session i.e. June 30
and such period of service will be deemed
as extended period of employment."

3. Admittedly the academic session
begins on 1st July and ends on 30th June.
The said rule provides that in case if a
teacher attains the age of superannuation
during
the
commencement
of
the
academic session, he shall be permitted
to continue till the end of the academic
session i.e. till June 30. In the present case
all the petitioners are to attain the age of
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Brij Raj Pandey and others V. State of U.P. and others
449
superannuation on 30.6.2003. In such
circumstances the benefit of rule 20 of the
Rules of 1981 cannot be extended to the
petitioners as they are to retire on the last
day of the academic session. The
petitioners cannot be permitted to be on
extended service from the beginning of
the next academic session.

4. Thus in my view the petitioners
are not entitled to any relief. This writ
petition
is,
accordingly,
dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to
cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD JULY 14TH, 2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. writ Petition No. 34389 of 1994

U.P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow and
another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Presiding
Officer,
Labour
court
(I),
Kanpur and another
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Tarun Agarwala

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri G.L. Tripathi
S.C.

U.P.
Industrial
Dispute
Act
1947workman-whether
the
enrolled
apprentice can claim protection as a
workman? held- 'No'-person appointed
under Apprentice act 1961 is not a
workman.

Held- Para 5

A person who is enrolled as apprentice in
accordance with the provisions of the
Apprentices act, 1961 cannot claim the
benefit of the workman as stated under
the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
but in the present case, on the facts the
labour court recorded a finding that on
the facts and circumstances of the case,
the workman cannot be said to have
been enrolled as Apprentice because of
non compliance of the provisions of the
Apprentices Act.
Case law Discussed:
1996 (72) FLR 328
1996 (72) FLR 335
1998 (78) FLR 511
1999 LAB IC -1026

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

1. The employer- U.P. State
Electricity Board has challenged the
award of the Labour Court (1) U.P.
Kanpur dated 29th April, 1994 passed in
Adjudication Case No. 277 of 1993 by
means of this writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The following dispute was
referred to the Labour Court (1), Kanpur
for adjudication

"D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk Jfed fojsUnz dqekj
cktis;h iq= Jh jke vorkj cktis;h dks fnukad
31-3-87 ls dk;Z ls i`Fkd@oafpr fd;k tkuk
mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud gS? ;fn ugha] rks lacaf/kr
Jfed D;k fgrykHk@{kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh
gS] fdl frfFk ,oa vU; fdl fooj.k ds lkFk?"

3. The employer and the workman
concerned have exchanged their pleadings
and also adduced evidence. For the
purposes of decision of this writ petition,
the facts which are not disputed are that
the petitioner- employer have engaged the
concerned workman on an application
being made by the respondent no. 2 as
Apprentice and after the expiry of the
period of Apprentice-ship, his services
were terminated for which a dispute has
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in