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

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 449
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-06-30
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. writ Petition No. 34389 of 1994
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brij-raj-pandey-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40118
- **Pages:** 4

## 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

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
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
450
been raised, as stated above, and the
reference is made to the labour court for
adjudication.
The
Labour
court
considered the case set up by the
employer and arrived at the conclusion
that the concerned workman cannot be
treated to be an Apprentice because he
has not been registered under the
provisions of the Apprentice Act, 1961.
The labour court found that irrespective of
the nature of engagement of the workman
concerned, the employer are under
statutory obligation under the provisions
of the U.P. Industrial disputes act, 1947
and have to comply with the provisions of
section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial disputes
act, 1947 before terminating the services
of
the
workman
concerned
which,
admittedly, has not been done. The labour
court came to the conclusion that the
termination of services of the workman by
the employer is illegal and the workman
concerned is, therefore, entitled for
reinstatement with continuity of service
and full back wages. The labour court has
recorded a finding which has not been
disputed by the employer that the
workman
concerned
has
not
been
registered under the provisions of the
Apprentices Act and the benefit of the
Apprentices Act can be conferred on a
person only if he is registered under the
provisions of the Apprentices Act.

4. In reply thereto, Sri Tarun
Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner- employer has invited my
attention to the application filed by
workman concerned himself wherein he
has applied to be engaged as Apprentice
and has submitted that now it can not take
a stand against his own admission. After
having applied for the post of Apprentice,
it is now not open for workman to take a
different stand contrary to his own
admission, so he is entitled for the
benefits, which are available to a
workman under the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act. Sri Tarun Agarwal in
support of his contention has relied upon
a recent decision of the learned single
Judge of this court passed in civil misc.
writ petition no. 3232 of 1997, U.P. State
Electricity, through Kanpur electricity
supply Administration, KESA House,
civil lines, Kanpur through its General
Manager versus Ashok Kumar Shukla and
another decided on 31 March, 2003
wherein the learned single Judge has
relied upon several decision of the Apex
Court and has held that the workman
concerned being Apprentice cannot be
treated to be a workman and the view
taken by the labour court to the contrary
deserves to be set aside as has been done
by the learned single Judge in the
aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
3232 of 1997 (supra) Sri Tarun Agarwal
has further relied upon the decision
reported in 1996 (72) FLR page 328,Raj
Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and
others and the case reported in 1996 (72)
FLR page 335, Vazir Glass Works Ltd.
Vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union
and another. The decision of another
learned single Judge of this court reported
in 1998 (78) FLR page 511, U.P. state
Electricity Board and others versus P.O.
Labour court, Kanpur and others and also
the decision of another learned single
Judge of this court reported in 1996 (74)
FLR
page
1847,
M/s
U.P.
Sugar
Company Ltd. Deoria versus Ram Nath
Prasad and others has also been relied
upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.

5. Sri G.L. Tripathi, learned counsel
appearing for the workman concerned, on
the other hand, has relied upon the
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] U.P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow and another V. Presiding Officer, and another
451
decision of the Division Bench of Patna
High Court reported in 1999 LAB I.C.
1026, Ram Dular Paswan and others
versus Presiding Officer, Labour court,
Bokaro and another and two decisions of
the learned single Judge of this court
passed in civil misc. writ petition no. 18
of 1995, U.P. State Electricity Board
through
Kanpur
electricity
supply
Administration, KESA House, Kanpur
through its General Manager versus The
Presiding
Officer,
Labour
court-II,
Kanpur and others decided on 6th
February, 2001 and the decision of Civil
Misc. Writ Petition no. 21560 of 1995,
U.P. State Electricity Board through
General Manager, Kanpur Electricity
supply Administration, KESA House,
Civil Lines, Kanpur versus Presiding
Officer, Labour court-III, U.P. Kanpur
and others, decided on 26th September,
2002 and has submitted that there is no
dispute in the proposition laid down by
the Apex Court that 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.

6. In this view of the mater, it is not
necessary for this court to go further into
the proposition of law submitted by Sri
Tarun
Agarwal,
learned
counsel
appearing for the petitioner with which
there is no dispute but since on the facts
of the case as has been held by the
decision of the learned single Judge relied
upon Sri G.L. Tripathi, learned counsel
appearing for the workman concerned, it
has been found that the workman
concerned cannot be treated to be an
Apprentice because of non compliance of
the provisions of the Apprentice Act.
Therefore, he is nothing but as workman
under the provisions of the U.P. Industrial
Act. Sri Tarun Agarwal has submitted that
as far as employer is concerned, it has
complied with the entire provisions of the
Apprentices Act so far it requires on
behalf of the employer concerned it has
also
submitted
requisite
papers
for
registration
were
submitted
to
the
authorities. If the authorities under the
Apprentice Act did not register. The
workman as Apprentice , there is no fault
of the employer and the workman cannot
be given the benefit of the lapses on the
part
of
the
authorities
concerned
constituted under the provisions of the
Apprentice Act.

7. So far at this argument is
concerned, the law is well settled that if
the statute requires a thing to be done in a
particular manner, it has to be done in that
manner alone and not otherwise. (See AIR
1980 S.C. page 303, Safruddin vs. Abdul
Gani Loni). Therefore, the submission of
Sri Tarun Agarwal that the employer have
performed their part so far as the
recruitment of the workman as apprentice
is concerned and if the statutory authority
did not perform their part, they cannot be
blamed that the action on the part of the
authorities concerned cannot be accepted.

8. In view of what has been stated
above and in view of the finding recorded
by the labour court on the basis of the
admitted facts of the case, I do not find
that the labour court has committed any
error of law so as to warrant interference
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
452
by this court in exercise of power under
article 226 of the Constitution.

9. In view of what has been stated
above, it is not necessary for this Court to
consider the other arguments advanced on
behalf of Sri G.L. Tripathi, learned
counsel appearing for the workman as the
writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

10. For the reasons stated above, this
writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
The interim order, if any, stands vacated.
There will be no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 8.7.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE D.P. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.21533 of 1987

Thakur Ram Jankee

...Petitioner
Versus
Additional District Judge, Basti and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri J.P. Pandey
Sri K.N. Tripathi
Sri Tarun Verma
Sri V.N. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Dinesh Pathak
S.C.

Code of Civil Procedure- Ord. 23 Rule-3B- Representation Suit- Compromise
Decree-obtained without permission of
Court-
Suit
dismissed
in
Defaultrestoration
along
with
Compromise
application
engaging
another
new
counsel obtained-The role of Presiding
Judge Sri A.K. Srivastava found doubtfulconsidering long period of litigation cost
of Rs.1000/- per year basis emposed-
court has to objectively find that the
Compromise was Convention for non
parties-Compromise Decree set aside.

Held- Para 5 & 6

In the present case, there is nothing on
record to show that the court was taken
into confidence about the binding nature
of the compromise on non-parties. The
word,
"expressly
recorded
in
the
proceedings" signify that the leave of the
court for entering into a compromise
should invariably be recorded in writing
in the proceedings. Mere mentioning of
the
compromise
in
the
order-sheet
would not amount to compliance of the
requirements of the rule. For express
approval, the court has to objectively
find that the proposal of compromise in
the facts of each case was just and
convenient even for the non-parties
against whom the compromise could
operate.

The proceedings in the suit also casts a
doubt upon the integrity of the then
Presiding Officer Sri A.K. Srivastava. In
my opinion, even on this score the entire
proceedings including the compromise
decree cannot be sustained
Case law discussed:
AIR 1988 Punj. and Haryana 124

(Delivered by Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. This writ petition is primarily
directed against a compromise decree
passed by the trial court and upheld by the
revisional court vide its order dated
26.4.1983 and 10.3.1987.

3. The brief facts for decision of this
writ petition are that Sri Beni Madho Lal
built a Ram Janki temple and gifted a
house, well etc, including plot no.97 vide
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in