# Central Drug Institution v. Gyaneshwar Tripathi and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 443
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-04-11
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/central-drug-institution-v-gyaneshwar-tripathi-and-others-42190
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947-Section6 (1)-Duty of labor court-when any
dispute referred for adjudication under
Section 4 K-Tribunal or Lower Court duty
bound for adjudication-unless award
passed-no power to consign the record
merely on statement of representative of
workmen-held-recall order justified-can
not be termed in contravention of
statutory provision.

Held: Para 22 and 23

Thus , in view of the above said fact , it
must , therefore, be held as a matter of
construction , when the reference under
Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Act
1947 has been made to Labour Court/
Tribunal , the said authority is duty bond
to adjudicate the reference which is
made to it. Accordingly the action on the
part of the opposite party no.2/ Labour
Court in the present case , thereby
passing the order dated 12.8.1987 (
Annexsure
no.5)
consigning
the
reference to record on the statement
given by the representative/ workman
Sri Gyaneshwar Tripathi that he is not in
a position to contact workman and the
case may be consigned , is contrary to
law thus unsustainable.

In view of the above said fact , the
subsequent action on the part of the
Labour Court thereby recalling the order
dated 12.8.1987 ( Annexure no.5) on an
application moved on behalf of the
workman and passing the impugned
order dated 4.5.1988 ( Annexure no.8)
under challenge in the present case
cannot be said to be an action in
contravention
to
the
mandatory
provisions as provided under the Act for
adjudication of the industrial dispute
referred to it by the State Government
under Section 4K of the Act.

## Text

1 All] Central Drug Institution V. Gyaneshwar Tripathi and others
443
sentence awarded to the appellant to the
period
of
imprisonment
already
undergone by him. The appeal is to that
extent allowed and order modified. The
bail
bonds
of
the
appellant
are
discharged. The appellant shall be set at
liberty if he is not wanted in any other
case.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.04.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J.

Misc. Single No. - 5282 of 1988

Central Drug Institution {At : 02:00
P.M.}

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Gyaneshwar Tripathi and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi

Counsel fr the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947-Section6 (1)-Duty of labor court-when any
dispute referred for adjudication under
Section 4 K-Tribunal or Lower Court duty
bound for adjudication-unless award
passed-no power to consign the record
merely on statement of representative of
workmen-held-recall order justified-can
not be termed in contravention of
statutory provision.

Held: Para 22 and 23

Thus , in view of the above said fact , it
must , therefore, be held as a matter of
construction , when the reference under
Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Act
1947 has been made to Labour Court/
Tribunal , the said authority is duty bond
to adjudicate the reference which is
made to it. Accordingly the action on the
part of the opposite party no.2/ Labour
Court in the present case , thereby
passing the order dated 12.8.1987 (
Annexsure
no.5)
consigning
the
reference to record on the statement
given by the representative/ workman
Sri Gyaneshwar Tripathi that he is not in
a position to contact workman and the
case may be consigned , is contrary to
law thus unsustainable.

In view of the above said fact , the
subsequent action on the part of the
Labour Court thereby recalling the order
dated 12.8.1987 ( Annexure no.5) on an
application moved on behalf of the
workman and passing the impugned
order dated 4.5.1988 ( Annexure no.8)
under challenge in the present case
cannot be said to be an action in
contravention
to
the
mandatory
provisions as provided under the Act for
adjudication of the industrial dispute
referred to it by the State Government
under Section 4K of the Act.

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

1. Heard Sri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi,
learned counsel for the petitioner , Sri S.C.
Sitapuri learned counsel for respondent
no.1, learned State Counsel for respondent
no.2 and perused the record.

2. In the city of Lucknow there is an
institute known as Central Drug Research
Institute , Lucknow ( Hereinafter referred
to
as
'
Institute')
established
and
administered by the Council of Scientific
and Industrial Research , New Delhi , a
Society, registered under the Societies
Registerationi Act, 1860.

3. As per the version of the petitioner
, the institute has been established for
conducting research work in various drugs
, and no productive activity is being carried
444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
out in the institute resulting in goods or
services.

4. For the purpose of security
arrangement, opposite party no.1/ Sri
Gyaneshwar Tripathi had been engaged
with effect from 9.12.1980. Later on, a
decision, as per instructions received from
Council of Scientific and
Industrial
Research , New Delhi, was taken that the
security arrangement of the institute be
entrusted to M/s Ex-Servicemen Security
Group, Lucknow with effect from 1.4.1984
as such an oral agreement has taken place
between the institute and the said security
group
for
the
purpose
of
security
arrangement.

5. In view of the said development ,
as per the pleading of the petitioner,
opposite party no.1 voluntarily abandoned
from service in the institute with effect
from 1.4.1984 as he did not want to work
under the security contractor / M/s ExServicemen Security Group, Lucknow.

6. In view of the above said
background initially a conciliation was
made between the parties which was
unsuccessful,
as
such
the
State
Government under Section 4 K of the Uttar
Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (
hereinafter referred to as "Act') made a
reference reproduced as under:-

" Kya seva Yojakon dwara apne
Shramik Gyaneshwar Tripathi Chowkidar
son of Shri Raj Bahadur Tripathi ko
dinank 1.4.1984 se karya se prathak/
vanchit kiya jana uchit tatha/ athva
vaidhanik hai? Yadi nahin, to sambandhit
shramik kya labh/ anutosh/relief pane ka
adhikari hai, tatha anya kis vivaran sahit."

7. Accordingly, a reference has been
registered before opposite party no.2/
Labour Court as Adjudication Case no. 89
of 1985 (Director, Central Drug Research
Institute, Chatter Manzil , Lucknow Vs.
Gyaneshwar Tripathi) . On 17.7.1986,
opposite party no.1 filed written statement
thereafter on 21.8.1985 petitioner filed
written statement. On 19.2.1986, Sri P.L.
Chabbra , Administrative Officer ( SG)
CDRI, Lucknow files a rejoinder statement
,thereafter on 15.4.1987, opposite party no
.1 filed rejoinder statement duly signed by
his authorized representative Sri D.R.
Saxena.

8.

On
12.8.1987
authorized
representative of opposite party no.1 made
a statement that he is not in a position to
contact opposite party no.1 and states that
the case may be consigned . In view of the
above said fact, opposite party no.2/
Labour Court on 12.8.1987 passed an order
as contained in annexure no.5 to the writ
writ petition reproduced as under:-

"
Case
called
out.
Workmen's
representative is present. He say that he is
not in a position to contact the workman
and the case may be consigned.

In view of their request, let the case
be consigned to record."

9. In the month of December, 1987 (
Annexure no.6) , on behalf of opposite
party no.1 an application has been moved
for recall of the order dated 12.8.1987 to
which petitioner filed objection ( Annexure
no.7) on 8.3.1988 after hearing the learned
counsel for the parties, opposite party no.2
by order dated 4.5.1988 ( Annexuer no.8)
recalled the order dated 12.8.1987on
payment of Rs.300/- as costs to the
1 All] Central Drug Institution V. Gyaneshwar Tripathi and others
445
petitioner and fixed 14.7.1988 for further
hearing.

10. Aggrieved by the order dated
4.5.1988 ( Annexure no.8) present writ
petition has been filed by the petitioner/
institute and on 26.8.1988 this Court has
passed an interim order, the relevant
portion is quoted as under:-

"Till
further
orders
proceedings
before the Labour Court may continue but
no final orders may be passed."

11. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the question
which is to be decided in the present case
is that "whether the labour court has got
power to consign the matter to record
when a reference has been made to it
under Section 4 -K of the Act for deciding
the dispute ?"

12. In order to decide the said
question , it will be appropriate to go
through the Section 4-K of the Act, which
provides that where the State Government
is of opinion that any industrial dispute
exists or is apprehended , it may at any
time by order of writing:

(a) refer the dispute of any matter
appearing to be connected with or relevant
to the dispute to a Labour Court .

(b) refer the matter of industrial
dispute is one of those contained in the
First shedule, or to a Tribunal .

(c ) refer the matter of dispute is one
contained in the First Schedule or the
Second Schedule for adjudication.

13. Provided that were the dispute
relates to any matter specified in the
Second Schedule and is not likely to affect
more than one hundred workmen, the State
Government may, if it so thinks fit, make
the reference to a Labour Court.

14. Thus, as the mandate of the
Section 4 K of the Act in express term
empowers the State Government has
power to reefer the industrial dispute to a
Labour Court/ Tribunal for adjudication if
the State Government is of opinion that
any
industrial
dispute
exists
or
is
apprehended .

15. Further, Section 6 (1) of the Act
imposes a duty upon the Labour Court or
Tribunal for adjudication of dispute which
has been referred to it and for said purpose
they
shall
hold
its
proceedings
expeditiously and shall as soon as it is
practicable on the conclusion thereof ,
submit its award to the State Government.

16. Moreover, Section 5(C) of the
Act provides that the procedure and
powers of Boards , Labour Courts and
Tribunals
while
concluding
the
proceedings and states that subject to any
rules that may be made in this behalf ,
Labour court and tribunal shall follow such
procedure as the arbitrator , the Labour
Court or the Tribunal may think fit.

17. Section 5 (2) of the Act provides
that a presiding officr of a Labour Court or
a Tribunal may for the purpose of enquiry
into any existing or apprehended industrial
disputes , after giving reasonable notice ,
enter the premises occupied by any
establishement to which the disputes
relates.

18. Section 5 (3) provides that
Labour Court or Tribunal shall have the
same powers as are vested in a Civil Court
446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
when trying a matter in sub section (3) (a)
and (3) (b) .

19. After conclusion of adjudication
of the dispute which referred to Labour
Court in view of the provisions as provided
under Section 6 (1) and Section 6 (2) of the
Act provides that an award of Labour
Court or Tribunal shall be in writing and
shall be signed by its Presiding Officer.
Further thereafter sub section (3) of
Section 6 provides as under:-

"(1-A) An award in an industrial
dispute relating to the discharge or
dismissal of a workman may direct the
setting aside of the discharge or dismissal
and reinstatement of the workman on such
terms and conditions, if any, as the
authority making the award may think fit,
or granting such other relief to the
workman, including the substitution of any
lesser
punishment
for
discharge
or
dismissal , as the circumstances of the case
may require.

(3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) every arbitration award and the
award of the Labour Court or Tribunal ,
shall, within a period or thirty days from
the date of its receipt by the State
Government be published in such manner
as the State Government thinks fit."

20. Moreover, Section 6-A of the Act
lays down the certain conditions in which
the State Government can modify the
award which is referred to it . However,
sub section (1) of Section 6-A) of the Act
provides that an award shall become
enforceable on the expiry of thirty days
from the date of its publication under
Section 6 of the Act.

21. Upon an examination of all the
statutory provisions, it is clear that a
statutory duty is imposed upon the tribunal
to hold its proceedings expeditiously and
submit its award to the State Government
as soon as a reference is made to it for
adjudication under Section 4K of the Act.
The other Sections , namely, Sections 6,
6A and 5(C) of the Act are all peremptory
in character. The scheme and purpose of
the statute is that once a reference is made
by the State Government, the industrial
tribunal must hold its proceedings and
submit its award in an expeditious manner
and upon such an award being made it
should
be
published
by
the
State
Government under Section 6(3) and should
normally become enforceable within thirty
days of its publication.

22. Thus , in view of the above said
fact , it must , therefore, be held as a matter
of construction , when the reference under
Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Act 1947
has been made to Labour Court/ Tribunal ,
the said authority is duty bond to
adjudicate the reference which is made to
it. Accordingly the action on the part of the
opposite party no.2/ Labour Court in the
present case , thereby passing the order
dated
12.8.1987
(
Annexsure
no.5)
consigning the reference to record on the
statement given by the representative/
workman Sri Gyaneshwar Tripathi that he
is not in a position to contact workman and
the case may be consigned , is contrary to
law thus unsustainable.

23. In view of the above said fact ,
the subsequent action on the part of the
Labour Court thereby recalling the order
dated 12.8.1987 ( Annexure no.5) on an
application moved on behalf of the
workman and passing the impugned order
dated 4.5.1988 ( Annexure no.8) under
1 All] Raghvendra Kumar Srivastava V. State of U.P. and others
447
challenge in the present case cannot be said
to be an action in contravention to the
mandatory provisions as provided under
the Act for adjudication of the industrial
dispute referred to it by the State
Government under Section 4K of the Act.

24. For the foregoing reasons, writ
petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

25. Keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case that the
adjudication case on the reference made by
the State Government under Section 4K of
the Act has been registered before the
Labour Court in the year 1985 and since
then the same is pending before opposite
party no.2, a direction is issued to opposite
party
no.2
to
decide
the
matter
expeditiously, preferably, within a period
of six months from the date a certified
copy of this order is produced.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.04.0212

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.

Service Single No. - 5415 of 2002

Raghvendra Kumar Srivastava

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.Thru Secy.,Revenue Deptt.,
Lucknow and 3 others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Pandey
Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P.
Govt.
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal)
Rules
1999-Rule-7-Dismissal
from
Services-without
serving
chargesheet-without fixing date, time
and place of inquiry-without opportunity
of evidence-without following procedure
contained
under
Rule
7-held-illegalunsustainable-dismissal quashed.

Held: Para 22

The U.P. Government Servant (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules, 1999, particularly
Rule 7 provides the procedure for
imposing major penalties and Rule 8
relates to submission of enquiry report,
whereas Rule 9 deals with action on
enquiry report. The opposite parties have
not followed the procedure prescribed
for imposing major penalty of dismissal
on the petitioner.
Case law discussed:
2011 (29) LCD 832

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J. )

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the learned Standing
Counsel and perused the records.

2. The writ petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 31.12.2001 by
which the petitioner while working on the
post of Collection Amin has been
dismissed from the service after holding
disciplinary proceedings.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner was neither
provided relevant documents demanded
by him for submission of reply to the
charge sheet nor any date, time or place
was fixed by the Enquiry Officer to hold
the enquiry. It is also submitted that even
the charge sheet was not served upon the
petitioner
and
the
entire
enquiry
proceedings were held ex parte in the
absence of the petitioner. It is also
submitted that the petitioner was not
provided with the enquiry report and the