# F.C.I. Faiazabad v. Regional Labour Commissioner Central Lko. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 727
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-26
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1003583 of 2008
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/f-c-i-faiazabad-v-regional-labour-commissioner-central-lko-ors-54278
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

2 All. F.C.I. Faizabad Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner Central Lko. & Ors.
727

In view of the aforesaid the writ petition stands allowed in terms of the following directions.

(i) The present matter is referred to the Commissioner of the concerned Region, who may have been
appointed by the State Government by the notification in the official Gazette, in view of the provisions of
Section 20 of the Act, 1923; and he may put the claimant/petitioner to notice for filing evidence/documents to
demonstrate their restitutio in integrum, which may be considered along with the mitigating factors; as
indicated hereinabove, for grant of damages; apart from the re-determination of compensation as per Section
4 read-with Section 5 of the Act, 1923

(ii) Once the claimant is put to notice and given an opportunity to file their evidence, he shall proceed to
quantify the compensation and in consideration of the determining factors. The compensation shall be
quantified afresh and paid to the claimant within a period of one month from the date of such determination.

(iii) Once the compensation along with damages are determined, the same shall be held to be payable
along with the interest of 12% p.a., which is to be calculated from the date of death i.e. date of accident till the
actual disbursal of the said amount after deducting amount of Rs. 10,16,700/-, which has already been paid to
the petitioner/claimant.

(iv) In view of the law laid down in the case of Lata Wadhwa and Ors. (supra) and in consideration
of the admitted factual position and there has been an infraction to the principles of natural justice, it is
provided that a conventional figure of Rs. 1,00,000/- is to be added and paid over and above the quantifiable
compensation, to be determined by the Commissioner appointed under Section 20 of the Act, 1923.

(v) The entire aforementioned exercise is to be completed within a period of four months from the date
of production of copy of this order.

(vi) No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 727
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1003583 of 2008

F.C.I. Faiazabad ...Petitioner
Versus
Regional Labour Commissioner Central Lko. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Regional Labour Commissioner while exercising conciliation proceedings has
jurisdiction to decide the dispute relating to payment of wages and issue consequential recovery proceedings
(Paras 4, 6-8, 11,12)
728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Headnotes
LABOUR LAW - Conciliation Proceedings - Jurisdiction of Regional Labour Commissioner - Scope
and limitation - Whether authority can adjudicate dispute and direct payment of wages - Held,
under conciliation proceedings only conciliation can be made and authority has no power to
decide dispute or direct payment of wages - such action amounts to assumption of jurisdiction
of Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal - impermissible - orders passed without jurisdiction liable to
be quashed. (Paras 9, 11)
LABOUR LAW - Conciliation vs. Adjudication - Distinction - Conciliation proceedings cannot
culminate in determination of rights - if conciliation fails matter has to be referred to Central
Government for transmission to Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal - direct adjudication by
conciliation authority is manifest error of law and jurisdiction. (Paras 9, 11)
JURISDICTION - Lack of - Effect - Primary order being without jurisdiction - consequential
orders including rejection of recall application and recovery proceedings also wholly without
jurisdiction - not sustainable in eyes of law. (Para 12)
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Orders passed in perfunctory and cursory manner - exemplary costs -
imposition justified where authority acts beyond jurisdiction. (Para 15)
Held:
Under conciliation proceedings only conciliation can be made and in case conciliation proceeding fails the only
remedy is to refer the matter to the Central Government for its transmission to the Labour Court or Industrial
Tribunal which alone can pass appropriate order - the order passed by the Regional Level Commissioner
directing payment of wages is wholly without jurisdiction as he has no authority under law to pass such order
and if satisfied that wages are liable to be paid he ought to have made reference to the competent authority -
in proceeding to decide the controversy he has committed manifest error of law and jurisdiction -
consequential orders including rejection of recall application and initiation of recovery proceedings being
dependent upon such order are also wholly without jurisdiction and not sustainable in the eyes of law -
impugned orders having been passed in a perfunctory and cursory manner are liable to be quashed - Petition
allowed. (Paras 9, 11-13, 15) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts
- Article 226

List of Keywords
Conciliation Proceedings - Jurisdiction - Regional Labour Commissioner - Industrial Dispute - Reference to
Government - Labour Court - Industrial Tribunal - Recovery Proceedings - Without Jurisdiction - Manifest
Error - Quashing of Orders

Case Arising From
Order dated 2.11.2006, order dated 5.6.2008 and recovery certificate dated 4.7.2008 passed by the inConciliation Case No. LKO.8(2-31)/2005

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):
Jaideep Narain Mathur, Sayed Haseen, Shikhar Anand
Counsel for the Respondent(s):
H.G.S. Parihar, Kumar Ayush, R.N. Tilhari, Raj Kumar Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)
2 All. F.C.I. Faizabad Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner Central Lko. & Ors.
729

1. Heard Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Raj Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the respondents-Union of India.

2. Vide order dated 11.7.2019, this Court held that service of notice upon opposite party no.2 is deemed sufficient.

3. In view of the above, this Court is proceeding to decide the controversy involved in the present writ petition.

4. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 2.11.2006,
5.6.2008 and the recovery certificate dated 4.7.2008 passed by the opposite party no.1 in Conciliation Case
No.LKO.8(2-31)/2005, enclosed as Annexure Nos.1 & 2 to the writ petition.

5. Factual matrix of the case is that the respondent no.2 filed several writ petition before this Hon'ble
Court praying reinstatement of 255 workers with continuity of service and full back wages and also wages
for the period 26.06,1998 to 19.08.1999. Vide order dated 4.10.2025, these writ petitions were disposed of
with the direction to the petitioners to approach the concerned State or Central for making reference for
adjudication of dispute before appropriate Forum/ Industrial Adjudicator.

On 23/27.12.2007, respondent no.2 instead of approaching Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court made
representation before RLC (Central), Lucknow for conciliation proceedings. On 14.08.2006, petitioner filed
preliminary objections before the RLC. The RLC without deciding the preliminary objection started
conciliation proceedings in the matter relating to payment of wages to 77 workers w.e.f. 26.06.1998 to
18.08.1998. The petitioner never accepted any compromise nor made any commitment an order was passed
by the opposite party no.1 without having any power for determination of dispute the petitioner to pay wages
to the 77 workers.

The application for recall of the order dated 2.11.2006 was rejected by the opposite party no.1 vide
order dated 5.6.2008. The opposite parties did not take any decision regarding the revision/ modification of
the drawings submitted by the petitioner but instead the Director, C&DS arbitrarily and unilaterally modified
the agreement and took 7 works from the petitioner out of the total 17 works granted by the agreement and
also asked to show cause as to why the agreement not be terminated on the ground that it had not completed
the work as per the terms of agreement vide order dated 4.7.2008 and recovery was issued on 4.7.2008.

6. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the application was moved for
conciliation proceedings to be initiated before the Regional Labour Commissioner, then he would not have
proceeded to decide the issue like Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court.

7. Next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that without any authority under law and
wholly without jurisdiction the opposite parties proceeded to pass orders impugned and in pursuance thereof,
recovery proceedings have also been initiated and an application for recall of the order has also been rejected,
therefore the order passed is wholly without jurisdiction.

8. Next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire proceedings initiated by the
Regional Level Commissioner is wholly without jurisdiction and without any rational basis, therefore, the
impugned orders are patently illegal and are liable to be set aside.
730 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. On the other hand, Shri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents-Union of India
admitted the fact that under the conciliation proceedings only conciliation can be made. In case conciliation
proceeding fails, the only remedy is available to refer the matter to the Central Government who will
recommend to the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal will pass
an appropriate order.

10. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material on
record.

11. Admitted position is that the order passed by the Regional Level Commissioner is wholly without
jurisdiction. He has no authority under law to pass the order for payment of wages under conciliation
proceedings. In case he was satisfied that the wages are liable to be paid to the labourer then by disposing of
the conciliation proceeding he has to make reference to the Central Government for its transmission to the
Competent Authority i.e. Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal. In this view of the matter, the Regional Level
Commissioner has committed manifest error of law and jurisdiction in proceeding to decide the controversy
involved in the matter.

12. The consequential orders are also dependent upon the order passed by the Regional Level
Commissioner, therefore, the order rejecting recall application as well as initiating proceeding for recovery of
the amount is wholly without jurisdiction and is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons assigned above, impugned orders
dated 2/11/2006, 5/6/2008 and the recovery certificate dated 4.7.2008 are hereby quashed.

14. In the result, this writ petition is allowed.

15. The orders impugned show that in a very perfunctory and cursory manner, the orders have been
passed, therefore an exemplary cost to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to be payable to the petitioner is imposed upon
the then Regional Level Commissioner who was appointed at the relevant point of time when the order was
passed.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 730
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 3 of 2026

Mohammad Arif ...Petitioner
Versus
Laiq Ahmad ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration