# Ghazipur Central Consumers Cooperative Stores Ltd. & anr v. P.O., Labour Court

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 694
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12588 of 1998
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ghazipur-central-consumers-cooperative-stores-ltd-anr-v-p-o-labour-court-40167
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Act,
1947Section 6-N-Constitution of India-Article
226-Writ
Jurisdiction-Exercise
ofReinstatement-Termination of Services
of
petitioner
without
conducting
enquiry-No opportunity to show causereinstatement of workman held- legalFinding not perverse-No error of law
pointed out-

Held- Para 8

The law is well established that the
finding arrived at by the labour court on
the basis of the pleadings and the
evidence adduced by the parties should
not be lightly interfered unless the same
are demonstrated to be perverse or
suffering from any manifest error of law.
Nothing sort has been pointed out by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that
the finding recorded by labour court is
contrary to law.

## Text

694 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
289, the Supreme Court observed that the
Court should not ordinarily interfere with
policy
matters
requiring
technical
expertise.

19. The submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner that there is no
such age restriction in the Motor Vehicles
Acts or Rules, or that natural justice was
violated, is wholly misconceived. The
restriction in question has been placed by
a party who wishes to enter into a
contract. A contract by its very nature is a
voluntary bilateral transaction, by which
two parties enter into an agreement of
their own freewill. Hence the corporation
can decide the terms on which it is
agreeable to give the contract, just as the
petitioner is free to make a tender or not,
and neither party can be compelled in this
connection.
Petitions
dismissed.
Interim
orders
vacated.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD JULY 11TH, 2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12588 of 1998

Ghazipur
Central
Consumers
Cooperative Stores Ltd. and another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Varanasi and another
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh
Sri Devendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P.
Industrial
Disputes
Act,
1947Section 6-N-Constitution of India-Article
226-Writ
Jurisdiction-Exercise
ofReinstatement-Termination of Services
of
petitioner
without
conducting
enquiry-No opportunity to show causereinstatement of workman held- legalFinding not perverse-No error of law
pointed out-

Held- Para 8

The law is well established that the
finding arrived at by the labour court on
the basis of the pleadings and the
evidence adduced by the parties should
not be lightly interfered unless the same
are demonstrated to be perverse or
suffering from any manifest error of law.
Nothing sort has been pointed out by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that
the finding recorded by labour court is
contrary to law.

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

1. This petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India has been filed by
the petitioners-employer challenging the
award of the Labour Court, Varanasi
dated 29th August, 1997 passed in
Adjudication Case No. 179 of 1989.

2. The following dispute was
referred to for adjudication to Labour
Court:

"D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed jktsUnz izlkn
frokjh] iq= cyHknz frokjh 'kk[kk izcU/kd dh lsok;sa fnukad
21.8.87 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud
gS? ;fn ugha] rks Jfed D;k vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh
gS?"

3. After receipt of reference labour
court issued notices to the parties. The
parties have exchanged their pleadings
and adduced evidence before labour court.
The case set up by the workmanhttp:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Ghazipur Central Consumers Cooperative Stores Ltd. & anr. V. P.O., Labour Court.
695
respondent no. 2 is that he was appointed
with the employer on 7th January, 1974 as
Branch Manager and since then he was
regularly working till 28th August, 1986
when he was suspended to the false
allegations regarding embezzlement. No
charge sheet has been served on him, no
enquiry officer was appointed, no enquiry
was conducted to the knowledge of the
workman
concerned.
The
workman
received a notice to appear on 30th July,
1987 for enquiry . The workman
presented himself but no enquiry was
conducted nor any opportunity was given
by the so called enquiry officer. It appears
that some sort of enquiry report is
obtained behind the back of the workman
concerned and the workman concerned
has not been supplied even the copies of
the documents and records. It is on the
basis of the exparte enquiry report, the
services of the workman concerned has
been terminated on 21st August, 1987.
The workman raised the dispute which is
referred to labour court which has
answered the reference in favour of the
workman, thus, this writ petition by
employer.

4. The employer have also filed their
written statement and stated that the
workman
has
been
afforded
full
opportunity and after enquiry services of
workman has been terminated. The case
set up by the employer is that the regular
enquiry
was
conducted
against
the
workman concerned and he was given full
opportunity. It is only when the charges
were proved in the enquiry, his services
were terminated. The employer have
further submitted that in case domestic
enquiry conducted by the employer was
found not to be in accordance with the
principles of natural justice, the employer
may be afforded an opportunity to prove
the
charges
against
the
workman
concerned before the labour court.

5. The labour court directed the
parties
to
produce
their
relevant
documentary evidence and on 13th
March, 1996, which was the date fixed,
the employers' representative made a
statement that if domestic enquiry was not
found fair and proper, the employer may
be given an opportunity to prove the
charges
before
the
labour
court.
Thereafter, the employer have produced
one Bhavan Prakash Lal Srivastava,
Accountant as witness to prove the
documents and the charge against the
workman concerned. The statement of
aforesaid Bhavan Prakash Lal Srivastava
was completed on 24th April, 1997 and
thereafter 26th August, 1997 was fixed
for the statement of the workman
concerned and his statement was recorded
on oath but the employers' representative
Sri S.K. Tripathi had informed the labour
court that he will not participate in the
enquiry as no employee of the employer
has contacted him with records.

6. In this view of the matter, the
statement of the workman concerned
remained uncontroverted as no body was
prepared to cross- examine the workman
concerned. The labour court, therefore,
decided to proceed the case on the basis
of the material available on record.

7. The labour court after considering
the material on record has arrived at the
conclusion that in fact no enquiry what to
domestic enquiry was conducted and the
services of the workman concerned were
terminated
without
complying
with
provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The labour
Court, therefore, recorded a finding that
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
neither any opportunity was given, nor the
employer inspite of opportunity being
given by labour court after coming to
conclusion that no enquiry was conducted
have tried to prove the charges against the
workman concerned before labour court.
The labour court, therefore, directed the
reinstatement of the workman concerned
with continuity of service and full back
wages. It is this award which is under
challenged by means of the present writ
petition, as stated above.

8. The law is well established that
the finding arrived at by the labour court
on the basis of the pleadings and the
evidence adduced by the parties should
not be lightly interfered unless the same
are demonstrated to be perverse or
suffering from any manifest error of law.
Nothing sort has been pointed out by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
finding recorded by labour court is
contrary to law.

9. In this view of the matter, the
finding record by the labour court to the
effect that no enquiry has been conducted
by the employer in the matter of charges
against the workman concerned and that
the workman has not been afforded any
opportunity,
whatsoever,
remains
unassailable. No other point has been
argued.

10. In view of what has been said
above, this writ petition deserves to be
dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The
interim order, if any, stands vacated.
There will be no order as to costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 6.5.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M.C. JAIN, J.
THE HON'BLE K.N. OJHA, J.

Criminal Appeal No.2912 of 1980

Shrilal

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.S. Tiwari
Sri K.K. Srivastava
Sri V.K. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri G.S. Bisaria
A.G.A.

Indian Penal Code Section 34, 302immediate and strong motive to commit
crime-presence of two witnesses on
place of occurrence well explained-delay
in lodging FIR also explained-finding of
fault recordes by trial court upheldappeal dismissed.
Held-paras 17 and 18
On consideration of all relevant and
important aspects, we find ourselves in
agreement with the finding of guilt
recorded by the learned trial judge
against the two accused appellants.

Resultantly, we subscribe to the view
taken by the trial judge and find no merit
in these two appeals. The appellants
have
rightly
been
convicted
under
Section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34
I.P.C. for the murder of Bachchu Singh
with
sentence
of
life
imprisonment
awarded to each of them.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M.C. Jain, J.)

1. Both these criminal appeals arise
out of the judgment and order dated
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in