# Haryana State Electricity Board v. Narseh J.T. 1996(2) S.C. 542. The writ

- **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 231
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-01-03
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5817 of 1997
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/haryana-state-electricity-board-v-narseh-j-t-1996-2-s-c-542-the-writ-39803
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Article 226-The
appropriate Government in the case of
employees of the Central Government in
the Central Government - the reference
in such cases by the State Government is
bad in law.

Held - Para 3

The
labour
Court
relied
upon
the
aforesaid definition, in my opinion rightly
arrived
at
the
conclusion
that
the
respondent-Labour Court Vth, Kanpur
does not have jurisdiction as the State
Government has no jurisdiction to refer
the dispute under Section 4 K.
Case law relied:
2001 AIR- SCW P.2685
1999 Alld. law report P.735

## Text

1All] Anand Kumar V. Union of India through its Secretary and others
231
condition is not bad and hence it is not a
fit case for granting compassionate
appointment. The Tribunal has referred to
the family pension etc. which the
petitioner's family is getting as well as the
rent from houses, as well as the plots in
several towns. It is settled law that
compassionate
appointment
may
be
granted only when the financial condition
of the family is bad, vide Umesh Kumar
Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana (1994) 4
SCC 138, but in this case the finding of
fact is that it is not bad. Moreover the
petitioner's father died on 30.5.94 i.e.
almost 8 years ago and hence this is not a
fit case for passing any mandamus under
Article 226 of the Constitution since the
purpose
of
giving
compassionate
appointment is that there is an immediate
financial crisis in the family, vide
Haryana State Electricity Board V.
Narseh J.T. 1996(2) S.C. 542. The writ
petition is hence dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.01.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5817 of 1997

Sheo Shankar

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prakash Padia
Dr. R.G. Padia

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.N. Srivastava
S.C.

Constitution of India-Article 226-The
appropriate Government in the case of
employees of the Central Government in
the Central Government - the reference
in such cases by the State Government is
bad in law.

Held - Para 3

The
labour
Court
relied
upon
the
aforesaid definition, in my opinion rightly
arrived
at
the
conclusion
that
the
respondent-Labour Court Vth, Kanpur
does not have jurisdiction as the State
Government has no jurisdiction to refer
the dispute under Section 4 K.
Case law relied:
2001 AIR- SCW P.2685
1999 Alld. law report P.735

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

1. This writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India was heard
by me on 3rd of January, 2002 and after
hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, I dismissed the writ petition for
reasons to be recorded later on. The
reasons for the dismissal of the aforesaid
writ petition are as under.

2. The facts which are not in dispute
are as follows. That petitioner's father
Ram Nath, who was an employee of
Central PWD, Kanpur and was posted as
Waterman, died while in service; that in
view of the circumstances after the death
of
petitioner's
father,
petition
was
appointed as a muster role employee on
compassionate ground; that while the
petitioner was working as muster role
employee,
the
petitioner's
mother,
namely, widow of deceased Ram Nath,
sought an employment under dying in
harness rules and she was appointed under
dying in harness rules with the employer
Central PWD, Central Region, Kanpur as
peon. As a consequence thereof the
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
232
petitioner, who was appointed on the
compassionate
ground,
in
the
circumstances petitioner's services were
terminated by the Assistant Engineer vide
his
order
dated
24.3.1996.
Being
aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner
Sheo Shanker raised a dispute which is
registered as I.D. Case No. 155 of 1989
before the Labour Court, U.P., Kanpur,
but the same was dismissed as no
reference was made. It is on the another
application that the matter was referred by
the State Government under Section 4 K
of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act to the
respondent-Labour Court Vth, Kanpur.
The aforesaid facts are not in dispute that
on the pleadings of the parties, a
preliminary objection was raised by the
employer as to whether the labour Court
Vth, Kanpur has Jurisdiction to give
answer to the reference. In view of the
fact that the petitioner alleges to be an
employee of the Central PWD, which is a
department of the Central Government
and therefore in the case of the petitioner
even assuming, though not admitting that
the
dispute
was
in
existence,
the
appropriate government should be the
Central Government and not the State
Government. The aforesaid preliminary
objection found favour with the labour
Court, which has relied upon Section 2-A
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
which reads as under:-

"2-A.
Dismissal
etc.,
of
an
individual workman to be deemed to be
an
industrial
dispute.-Where
any
employer
discharges,
dismisses,
retrenches or otherwise terminates the
services of an individual workman any
dispute
or
difference
between
that
workman and his employer connected
with or arising out of such discharge,
dismissal, retrenchment or termination
shall be deemed to be an industrial
dispute notwithstanding that no other
workman nor any union of workmen is a
party to the dispute."

3. The labour Court relied upon the
aforesaid definition, in my opinion,
rightly arrived at the conclusion that the
respondent-Labour Court Vth, Kanpur
does not have jurisdiction as the State
Government has no jurisdiction to refer
the dispute under Section 4 K as has been
done in the present case. The reference
was answered against the workman on the
ground of the aforesaid findings recorded
on the preliminary objection without
entering into the merits of the case.

4. It is this order, which is being
challenged by the petitioner in the present
petition.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner stated that the labour Court has
erred, the nature of appointment of the
petitioner, which was on compassionate
ground and he relied upon a Division
bench decision of this Court reported in
1999 Allahabad Law Report (Vol. 35)
page 735 - Ravi Karan Singh Versus
State of U.P. and others, wherein it has
been held that the appointment under the
dying in harness rules is a regular
appointment and therefore petitioner's
termination cannot be done except after
holding an enquiry upon the charges
against the petitioner. Learned counsel for
the petitioner goes on to submit that this
having not been done, the order of the
labour Court Vth, Kanpur is erroneous
and suffers from the manifest error of law.
Suffice it to say that from the facts stated
above, it is clear that the ratio of the
decision relied upon the petitioner is not
applicable to the facts of the present case.
The
petitioner,
who was appointed
immediately after the death of his father
1All] Sheo Shanker V. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court and another
233
on compassionate ground, ceased to
continue when his mother has been given
appointment under dying in harness rules
as peon. In view of the above, it cannot be
said that the petitioner's appointment was
under dying in harness rules and this was
also not a pleading before the labour
Court. It also clear that under dying in
harness rules only one of the family
member is entitled for appointment.

5. In any view of the matter, since
the labour Court has found that the
appropriate Government in the case of
employees of the Central Government, as
the petitioner claims to be the reference
by the State Government, is bad in law.
To meet this finding of the labour Court,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon a decision reported in 2001
A.I.R. SCW page 2685-Sapan Kumar
Pandit Versus U.P. State Electricity
Board and others, passed in civil appeal
no. 471 of 2001 (arising out of SLP
(Civil) No. 2648 of 2000), decided on
24.7.2001 by the apex Court, wherein the
apex Court has ruled that once the State
Government refers the dispute under
Section 4 K of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, it is not within the
domain of the labour Court to say that he
will not enter in the dispute as the
reference was made after un-due delay.
Needless to say that the aforesaid decision
relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is in different context and is not
relevant to the present case.

6. In view of what has been stated
above, this writ petition has not merits
and is accordingly dismissed. The interim
order, if any, stands vacated. There will,
however, be no order as to costs.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHBAD 01.02.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29451 of 1996

M/S Laxmirattan Cotton Mills, Kanpur

...Petitioner
Versus
Labour Court (IV) U.P. Kanpur and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Devendra Pratap

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri D.P.Singh
Sri Rajesh Tiwari
S.C.

Constitution of India- Article 226- Even if
there is no post, the Labour Court can
issue a direction for creation of the post
designating the pay scale- the reference
is
maintainable
in
respect
of
the
workman
drawing
wages
less
then
Rs.1600/-.

Held - Para 3

The Labour Court has considered the
pleadings of the parties and evidence on
record and arrived at a conclusion that
the workman is performing his similar
duties which were normally performed
by the Assistant Engineer in the other
department of the employer. In this view
of the matter, the labour Court has
allowed the workman concerned to be
designated as Assistant Engineer and
even if there is no such post, it is open to
the employer to create the post of the
similar capacity and pay the salary of the
pay scale, which is being drawn by
otherd Assistant Engineers in other
department of the employer.
Case Law Referred
1977 FLR-147