# General Manager Telecom & Anr v. Vishram & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 10 ILRA 899
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-29
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 29505 of 2017
- **Bench:** Vivek Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/general-manager-telecom-anr-v-vishram-anr-46425
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Act,
1947
-
regularization of service - Management
accepted respondent workman to be a
regular employee - competent authority of
the management passed order regularizing
services of the respondent workman and
directed its subordinates to act accordingly -
Held - Industrial Tribunal has not directed
for regularization of services - Respondent
workman's
services
were
already
regularized but the ministerial actions, were
not being taken and the effect of the award
is that the same would be taken - relief
granted in the award would be covered by
the Section 2(k) - order passed by the
Tribunal grants substantial justice - Court
declined to interfere with the same (Para
12)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

10 All. General Manager Telecom & Anr. Vs. Vishram & Anr.
899
the reassessment notices in all the writ
petitions are quashed. It is left open to the
respective assessing authorities to initiate
reassessment proceedings in accordance
with the provisions of the Act as amended
by Finance Act, 2021, after making all
compliances, as required by law.

81. Accordingly, reassessment notice
issued to the present petitioner dated
09.04.2021 for A.Y. 2017-18 is quashed.

82. All writ petitions are allowed. No
order as to costs."
----------
(2021)10ILR A899
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J

Misc. Single No. 29505 of 2017

General Manager Telecom & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Vishram & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Rajeev Kumar Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
P.R. Gupta, Jai Priya Swapnil, Pushpila
Bisht

Industrial
Disputes
Act,
1947
-
regularization of service - Management
accepted respondent workman to be a
regular employee - competent authority of
the management passed order regularizing
services of the respondent workman and
directed its subordinates to act accordingly -
Held - Industrial Tribunal has not directed
for regularization of services - Respondent
workman's
services
were
already
regularized but the ministerial actions, were
not being taken and the effect of the award
is that the same would be taken - relief
granted in the award would be covered by
the Section 2(k) - order passed by the
Tribunal grants substantial justice - Court
declined to interfere with the same (Para
12)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Secretary, St. of Karmataka & ors. Vs Uma
Devi & ors. [(2004) 4 SCC 1]

2. Management, Asstt. Salt Commissioner Vs
Secretary, Central Salt Mazdoor Union [(2008)
11 SCC 278]

3. Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo
Vs St. of Bihar & ors.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek
Chaudhary, J.)

1. Present writ petition is filed by the
petitioner employer challenging the award
of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Lucknow
dated 13.06.2017 published on 31.07.2017.
By the said award the Tribunal has decided
the reference in favour of the respondent
workman. The award is passed on the
following reference:-

"WHETHER THE DEMAND OF
THE NORTHERN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES
UNION FROM THE MANAGEMENT OF
GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, BSNL,
LUCKNOW FOR REGULARIZATION OF
SERVICES OF SRI VISHRAM S/O SRI
DINANATH FROM THE YEARS 1992-93, IS
LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED?' WHAT RELIEF
THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?'

2. I have heard counsels for parties
and
perused
the
record
with
their
assistance.
900 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
employer submits that the Tribunal could
not have directed for regularization of
services of the respondent workman as the
respondent workman has no right to claim
regularization in view of the judgment
passed in case of 'Secretary, State of
Karmataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi and
Others'; reported in [(2004) 4 SCC 1]. He
further submits that even otherwise it is
beyond
the
jurisdiction
of
Industrial
Tribunal to give an award with regard to
regularization of services.

4. On the other hand, opposing the
same, learned counsel for respondent
workman submits that the
Industrial
Tribunal
has
not
actually
granted
regularization to respondent workman but
has only recognized the orders dated
13.02.2003 and 10.10.2003 passed by the
management itself by which the respondent
workman was already regularized. The
Tribunal has only reflected upon the
negligence of the officers of the petitioner
employer for not implementing the orders
already taken way back.

5. Facts of the case are that
respondent workman was engaged as a
daily wager in the year 1991. He was disengaged in the year 1992 against which he
raised an industrial dispute and succeeded
by an award dated 27.07.2005. Thereafter,
he raised a claim for being regularized in
services. His application for regularization
was considered along with other entitled
persons by the management. He relies upon
number of letters of the management issued
from time to time, including the letter dated
13.02.2003 and letter dated 10.10.2003
issued by the corporate office of B.S.N.L.
addressed to CGM, BSNL, Lucknow
regarding regularization of left out casual
labourers. The Tribunal has given its award
on the basis of letter dated 10.10.2003. The
letter dated 10.10.2003 reads:-

"This
office
has
further
scrutinized the detailed information sent by
your office for remaining cases and further
17 (Seventeen) TSMs/CLs (Sr. No. 6, 7, 11,
12, 118 and 127 to 138) have been found to
be eligible for regularization at this stage.
3 cases (Sl. No. 50, 66 and 122) are under
consideration for being CGA appointment.
For
the
remaining
26
cases
some
additional information is required for
processing the cases further.

2. Accordingly, approval of the
Competent Authority is hereby conveyed
for following:-

(i) (GM, U.P. (East) Telecom
Circle is further authorized to create upto
17 (Seventeen) numbers of post of RM to
regularize
the
eligible
TSMs/CLs.
If
required after adjusting all the vacant post
of RM in the Circle. The circle's ceiling
limit will stand enhanced to this extent.
These regularized employees will be BSNL,
employees.

(ii) CGM is also authorized to
grant age relaxation as required in
individual cases for the purpose of
regularization as per rules."

6. The Tribunal found that the name
of the respondent workman appeared at Sl.
No. 17, i.e., he was included in the 17
persons found eligible for regularization by
the competent authority regarding to whom
the approval of competent authority was
also conveyed by letter dated 10.10.2003.
This letter and fact that name of petitioner
is in the list of regularized employees is not
disputed in the writ petition or during
course of arguments by the petitioner
employer. In fact the entire writ petition is
silent
with
regard
to
letter
dated
10.10.2003. Thus, it is accepted by the
10 All. General Manager Telecom & Anr. Vs. Vishram & Anr.
901
management that way back in October,
2003 the respondent workman was found
entitled to and was regularized in services.
Only consequential steps were to be taken
by officers sub-ordinate to the competent
authority. Since, consequential steps were
not taken, industrial dispute was raised and
the present reference was made.

7.

In
the
given
facts
and
circumstances of the case, I do not find any
force in the submission of the petitioner
employer. The judgment of Uma Devi case
(supra) is on the issue that the casual or
daily wage employees do not have any
right to claim regularization. In the present
case, the management as per its' policy has
already passed an order finding the
respondent workman to be covered by the
policy of regularization and the competent
authority
has
already
regularized
respondent workman along with other
entitled persons. The competent authority
has even issued directions that the age
relaxation be granted and circle ceiling
limit for adjusting respondent workman and
other similar employees be also enhanced
to the said extent. Therefore, it is wrong to
say that the respondent workman has
claimed any regularization. In the given
facts his claim is only to give effect to the
order of regularization already passed by
the competent authority by providing him
benefits. The non-denial of letter dated
10.10.2003, either before the Tribunal or
before this Court itself shows that there is
no dispute with regard to the fact that the
competent authority has already regularized
the services of respondent workman. The
sub-ordinate officers were only required to
take ministerial steps to give effect to the
said order of the competent authority. Thus,
there is no force in this submission of
statement of learned counsel for petitioner
employer.

8. The next submission of counsel for
petitioner employer is that even otherwise under
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Tribunal
does not have jurisdiction to grant relief of
regularization. He submits that the word
'regularization' is nowhere defined under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He further
submits that Section 2(A) only covers the field
in respect of dismissal, discharge, retrenchment
and termination but it is silent about
regularization. Similarly Section 7(A) read with
II and III schedule also cannot grant any relief
with regard to regularization. Reliance is placed
upon the judgment passed in case of
Management, Assistant Salt Commissioner
Vs. Secretary, Central Salt Mazdoor Union,
reported in [(2008) 11 SCC 278].

9. I do not find any force in this
submission of learned counsel for petitioner
employer also. As already held above, the
Industrial Tribunal has not directed for
regularization of services of the respondent
workman. Respondent workman's services
were already regularized but the ministerial
actions, on the basis of the order of
regularization
passed
by
the
competent
authority, were not being taken and the effect of
the award is that the same would be taken.
Therefore, the relief granted in the award would
be covered by the Section 2(k) of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 wherein industrial dispute
defined as:-

"industrial dispute" means any
dispute or difference between employers
and employees, or between employers and
workmen,
or
between
workmen
and
workmen, which is connected with the
employment or non-employment or the
terms of employment or with the conditions
of labour, of any person."

10. The relief granted is with regard
to employment and the treatment of the
902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
employer or the conditions of the labourer
or the workman. The benefits of order
passed by the competent authority which
were to be granted to the respondent
workman are would now be granted under
the award of the Industrial Tribunal.

11. Even otherwise, presuming for the
sake of argument that the Industrial
Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to pass an award
in the present matter, still, this Court
exercising its power under writ jurisdiction
would not set aside the award. The reason
for the same is that setting aside of the
award, even on ground of lack of
jurisdiction,
would
revive
an
illegal
situation,
where
though
respondent
workman
is
having
an
order
of
regularization in his favour, but, is denied
the benefit of the same. The law in this
regard is well settled by the following
judgments:-

"(i) Gadde Venkateswara Rao v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.,
AIR 1966 SC 828;

(ii) Maharaja Chintamani Saran
Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR
1999 SC 3609

(iii)
Mallikarjuna
Mudhagal
Nagappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka &
Ors., AIR 2000 SC 2976;

(iv) Chandra Singh v. State of
Rajasthan, AIR 2003 SC 2889;

(v) State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v.
Ajit Singh Bhola & Anr., (2004) 6 SCC
800)."

Suffice would be to quote from
the judgment passed in case of 'Maharaja
Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo Vs.
State of Bihar and Others'; reported in
[(1999) 8 SCC 16]. In paragraph-13 to 15,
the Court held that:-

"13. In Gadde Venkateswara Rao
v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and
Others, AIR (1966) SC 828:[1966] 2 SCR
172 this Court considered the action of the
State Government under Andhra Pradesh
Panchayats Samithis and Zilla Parishads
Act, 1959 and came to the conclusion that
the Government had no power under
Section 72 of the Act to review an order
made under Section 62 of the Act but
refused to interfere with the orders of the
High Court on the ground that if High
Court had quashed the said order, it would
have restored an illegal order and,
therefore, the High Court rightly refused to
exercise its extraordinary jurisdictional
power.

14. In Mohammad Swalleh and
Others v. IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Meerut
and Another, AIR (1988) SC 94:[1988] 1
SCR 841, similar view was also expressed
by this Court. In that case the order passed
by the Prescribed Authority under U.P.
(Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction
Act, 1947 was set aside by the District
Judge in appeal though the appeal did not
lie. The High Court came to the finding that
the order of the Prescribed Authority was
invalid and improper but the District Judge
had no power to sit in appeal. The High
Court did not interfere with the Orders of
the District Judge. The order of the High
Court was affirmed by this Court on the
ground
that
though
technically
the
appellant had a point regarding the
jurisdiction of the District Judge but the
order of the Prescribed Authority itself
being bad, refusal of the High Court to
exercise powers under Article 226 no
exception can be taken.

15. Therefore, in view of the
above ratio laid down by this Court, we
hold that even if the Member of Board of
Revenue had no power to issue direction
for giving notice for refund of the excess
amount paid, no exception can be taken to
the said order if it is found that legally the
10 All. Bappa Sri Narain Vocational Institute Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
903
appellant was paid excess compensation
under the Act."

12.
In
the present
case,
the
management
has
accepted
respondent
workman to be a regular employee and
competent authority of the management has
passed order regularizing services of the
respondent workman and directed its subordinates to act accordingly. For more than
a decade the sub-ordinate officers did not
act upon the same. There is no reason
placed before this Court for failure to
comply with the orders of the competent
authority. Therefore, order passed by the
Tribunal grants substantial justice and this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the
same.

13. Thus, there is no force in the writ
petition and the same is dismissed.
----------
(2021)10ILR A903
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Misc. Single No. 18588 of 2020

Bappa Sri Narain Vocational Institute
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Lalta Prasad Misra, Prafulla Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Savitra Vardhan Singh

Civil
Law
-
Vocational
Institution
-
Starting
new
subjects
by
existing
Vocational Institute in existence before
21.10.2005 - As per G.O. dated 21.10.2005
& 22.12.2016 - for starting new courses,
along with the proposal for the new
course, the applicant college in existence
since prior to Government Order dated
21.10.2005, is required to submit its' no
objection
certificate
along
with
an
affidavit that the land available with the
college since its establishment is still
available with it and the new course
would be run on the said land only - thus
association in a new subject can be
granted to a colleges which are existing
since prior to 21.10.2005, even where
land is neither owned by the parent body
nor by the managing institution colleges &
they are not required to submit any
documents with regard to land along with
their proposal for new courses - Held -
petitioner institution running since 1954
and on the same land new course of
B.Com was started from the year 2008
with temporary association - Held - the
petitioner institution is covered by the
Government Order dated 22.12.2016.

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.)

1. Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, Assisted by
Sri Prafulla Tiwari, learned counsel for
petitioner, Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh,
learned counsel for respondent Lucknow
University and Mr. Pankaj Khare, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State.

2. Present writ petition is filed by the
Bappa Sri Narain Vocational Institute for
quashing of the order dated 05.08.2020
passed by the Registrar of Lucknow
University
imposing
penalty
of
Rs.1,00,000/-
(One
Lakh)
upon
the
petitioner institution and condition no. 1 of
order dated 10.09.2020 also by Registrar of
Lucknow
University
providing
that
temporary association of the Bappa Sri
Narain Vocational Institute (hereinafter