# Electricity Board v. Jarina Bee ( Smt.)

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 753
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-03-21
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8317 of 1998
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/electricity-board-v-jarina-bee-smt-40191
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India Article 226, Labour
& Service-backwages or compensationlies in discretion
of Labour Courtinterference
under
Article
226
not
proper-

Held- Para 8

In
view
of
the
admission
of
the
petitioner himself that he had in his
own foolishness submitted a forged
School leaving certificate no relief can be
granted.
The
compensation
of
Rs.
10,000/- awarded to him on the basis of
wages in 1972 is sufficient. The question
of back wages or compensation lies in
the discretion of Labour Court and this
Court has no right to intefere as held by
Supreme Court in case of M.P. State
Electricity Board Vs. Jarina Bee ( Smt.)
(2003) 6 SCC-141.
Case law discussed:
2003 (6) SCC 141

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003

## Text

3 All] Mehndi Hussain V. P.O., Central Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court and another
753
such person all or any of the powers of
the Registrar."

8. It may be noted that Section 3 (2)
of the Act permits the conferment of any
power of the Registrar on any other
person. Section 98 (1) of the Act does not
deal with the powers of the Registrar at
all. It is a provision for an appeal against
the order of the Registrar. Hence the
Notification dated 24.06.1969 relied on
by Sri Manish Goel can only be relatable
to Section 98 (2) (b) of the Act which
state that if a decision or award was made
by a person or authority other than the
Registrar then an appeal against that
decision will lie to the Registrar. In view
of the Notification dated 24.06.1969 read
with Section 3 (2) of the Act, this will
mean that an appeal will lie to the District
Magistrate against an order made by a
person or authority other than the
Registrar,
in
view
of
the
above
notification. Hence we do not at all agree
with the submission of Sri Goel, that the
District
Magistrate
has
power
to
supersede or suspend a society registered
under the Co-operative Societies Act or to
appoint a Receiver or such society.

9. In our opinion the District
Magistrate can not be allowed to do
anything he pleases. In a democracy the
District Magistrate can exercise only such
powers as are granted to him by the law.
No power has been given to the District
Magistrate
under
the
Co-operative
Societies Act to suspend or supersede a
society or to appoint a Receiver in respect
of a society or to order an enquiry against
the society or its officials.

For the reasons given above, the writ
petition is allowed the impugned order
dated 21.03.2003 is quashed, no order as
to cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.9.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8317 of 1998

Mehndi Hussain

...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding
Officer,
Central
Industrial
Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Kanpur and
another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.A. Gilani

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vipin Sinha
Sri Navin Sinha
S.C.

Constitution of India Article 226, Labour
& Service-backwages or compensationlies in discretion
of Labour Courtinterference
under
Article
226
not
proper-

Held- Para 8

In
view
of
the
admission
of
the
petitioner himself that he had in his
own foolishness submitted a forged
School leaving certificate no relief can be
granted.
The
compensation
of
Rs.
10,000/- awarded to him on the basis of
wages in 1972 is sufficient. The question
of back wages or compensation lies in
the discretion of Labour Court and this
Court has no right to intefere as held by
Supreme Court in case of M.P. State
Electricity Board Vs. Jarina Bee ( Smt.)
(2003) 6 SCC-141.
Case law discussed:
2003 (6) SCC 141

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard counsel for the parties and
perused the record.

This writ petition has been filed
challenging the validity and correctness of
the award dated 17.3.1997 passed by the
Presiding Officer, Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,
Kanpur Nagar in Industrial Dispute No.
170 of 1984 (hereinafter called as
C.G.I.T.). The petitioner has prayed that
compensation of Rs. Ten thousand
awarded to him in lieu of reinstatment of
service be enhanced to Rs.2.5 lacs.

2. The petitioner, who is an Exmilitary person was appointed as Armed
Guard on 15.1.1970 on temporary basis at
Allahabad Branch of the State Bank of
India and subsequently he was selected
for the post of Armed Guard and was
appointed on substantivee basis on
probation in the same branch on 9.7.1971.
The contention of the petitioner is that he
was charged of having submitted a
fabricated and forged certificate on
9.7.1971 allegedly issued by the Principal,
R.R.K.
Secondary
School,
Dalipur,
District Pratapgarh. His services were
terminated w.e.f. 5.2.1972 on this ground.
An FIR was lodged under Sections
467,468,420 and 471 IPC against the
petitioner. He was chargesheeted and
thereafter acquitted by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Allahabad vide his judgment
and order dated 27.3.1979. After acquittal
the petitioner approached the Bank for his
reinstatement and he was informed that
his services were terminated w.e.f.
22.2.1972.

3. The petitioner raised an Industrial
Dispute which was referred by the Central
Government of India vide its order dated
28.5.1982 for adjudication to the Central
Government
Industrial
Tribunal-CumLabour Court, Kanpur where it was
registered as Adjudication Case No. 170
of 1984. The Tribunal vide its award
dated 22.11.1984 upheld the termination
of the workman. The said award was
challenged by the workman by means of
writ petition no. 1493 of 1985 which was
finally decided vide judgment dated 2nd
May 1994. The matter was remanded
back to the C.G.I.T. After remand the
management filed an additonal written
statement stating therein that the bank had
lost confidence in the workman.

4. Thereafter the Tribunal by the
impugned order dated 17.3.97 came to the
conclusion that there was no proof that
school leaving certificate was forged by
workman but as the matter was very old
and the concerned workman had also
attained the age of superannuation, a sum
Rs.10,000/- was awarded by way of
compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

5. The compensation of Rs. Ten
thousand awarded by the Tribunal as
compensation has also been paid to the
workman and the award has been
implemented. He had already put in 15
years of service in the army and was
engaged by the bank under welfare
scheme of the army for its discharged
employees.

6. From perusal of record it appears
that the petitioner had acknowledged that
his School Leaving Certificate was
forged. This acknowlegement has been
made in letter dated 20.12.71 and has
been appended as Annexure-CA-4 to the
counter affidavit.The relevant extract of
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Radhey Shyam V. Chief Engineer and another
755
letter dated 20th December, 1971 is as
under:

"(2) In this connection, I may add
that I do not know about its genuineness
as the signature of the Head Master of the
institution was neither made before me on
the certificate nor I yet recognize the
specimen of his signature. I submitted the
certificate to the Bank in full confidence
of its being genuine and had no intention
to defraud the bank. My intention had
never been to obtain any appointment in
the bank by way of fraudulent methods. I
am victim of my own foolishness that I
believed the school teacher under the
influence of the old established traditions
of teachers of the schools, who it appears
to had misguided me and sent me a forged
certificate, for the reasons best known to
him."

7. It appears that the School Leaving
Certificate of the petitioner was a
fabricated one either by the petitioner
himself or by the teacher.His services
were terminated before confirmation of
his service. He would be deemed to have
continued on probation.

8. In view of the admission of the
petitioner himself that he had in his own
foolishness submitted a forged School
leaving certificate no relief can be
granted.
The
compensation
of
Rs.
10,000/- awarded to him on the basis of
wages in 1972 is sufficient. The question
of back wages or compensation lies in the
discretion of Labour Court and this Court
has no right to intefere as held by
Supreme Court in case of M.P. State
Electricity Board Vs. Jarina Bee ( Smt.)
( 2003) 6 SCC-141.

9. For these reasons it is not a fit
case for interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. The Petition is
dismissed. No order as to cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.09.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17480 of 2000

Radhey Shyam

...Petitioner
Versus
Chief Engineer & another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Service-Transfer/adjustment-of class IV
employee-outside the Division-against
policy of State Govt.-where class IV
employees
were
already
excess
of
sanctioned posts- the order cancelling
petitioner's confirmation already stayed
by this Hon'ble Court- which is pending-
act
respondents
faulty-
cannot
be
valued-hence, quashed.

Service-Transfer/adjustment-of class IV
employee
outside
the
Divisiontransfer/adjustment order other class IV
employee either stayed or cancelledimpugned order can not sustain-hence,
quashed.

Held- Para 10

There
is
another
important
factor
bearing on the case of the petitioner that
he has been adjusted/transferred when
adjustment/transfer
orders
of
other
class IV employees working in the
Allahabad Circle have been either stayed
by order dated 5.2.2000 of this Court
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in