# High Court Bar Association v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, Allahabad and others - **Citation:** (2004) 2 ILRA 547 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2004-07-30 - **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 430 of 2003 - **Bench:** M. Katju, Umeshwar Pandey - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/high-court-bar-association-v-deputy-labour-commissioner-allahabad-and-others-40420 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Sri Pradeep Kumar Sri Uma Nath Pandey S.C. Land Acquisition Act-Ss. 4,6,11-A- Acquisition of land for planned Industrial development-It is for public purpose in urgently- Normal made of taking possession is by executions possession memo by Amin-once it is done, it will be deemed that possession has been taken by respondents- Hence, application for recall of judgment dismissing writ petition, rejected. Held: Para 7 Thus it is evident from these decisions that once possession memo has been executed it has to be deemed that possession has been taken by the respondents. It may be mentioned that normal mode of taking possession by the authorities is that the Amin goes to the spot and executes a possession memo. ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 2 All] High Court Bar Association V. Dy. Labour Commissioner, Allahabad and others 547 record and enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records accordingly on the basis of the lease deed in their favour. 6. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.7.2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J. Special Appeal No. 430 of 2003 High Court Bar Association ...Petitioner Versus Deputy Labour Commissioner, Allahabad and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ajit Kumar Sri Mohit Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.S. Diwakar S.C. Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972- S. 1 (3)- Applicability-Held, S. 1 (3) is not applicable to High Court Bar Association since it is not a factory, nine outfield, plantation, post or railway company, nor any shop or establishment-Further no notification under S. 1 (3) (c) by Central Government bringing High Court Bar Association within purview of Act. Held: Para 6 As regards clause (c) of Section 1 (3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act this will apply only when there is Central Govt. notification in this behalf. We have not been shown any Central Govt. notification under clause (c) of the Section 1 (3) which brings the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad within the purview of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Hence it is clear that the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 does not apply to the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad at all. (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) 1. Heard Sri Mohit Kumar learned counsel for the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad. None appears for respondents although the name of Sri A.S. Diwakar has been shown in the cause list. 2. This special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 7.5.03 of the learned Single Judge which dismissed the writ petition of the High Court Bar Association challenging the order under the Payment of Gratuity Act. 3. In our opinion this special appeal deserves to be allowed on the short point that the Payment of Gratuity Act does not apply to the High Court Bar Association at all. "Section 1(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act states : (3) It shall apply to - (a) every factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port and railway company, (b) every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State, in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months. (c) such other establishments or class of establishments, in which ten or more employees are employed or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months as the Central government may, by notification, specify in this http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004 548 behalf. 4. An establishment comes within the purview of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 only if it belongs to one of the three categories specified in Section 1 (3) of the Act. The High Court Bar Association is surely not a factory, mine oilfield, plantation, port or railway company. Hence clause (a) of Section 1(3) of the Act does not apply to it. 5. As regard clause (b) of Section 1(3) this too will not apply because this relates to a shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in the State in U.P. This law is the U.P. Dookan Aur Vaniya Adhisthan Adhiniyam, 1962. The High Court Bar Association, Allahabad is not a shop or establishment which comes within the purview of the aforesaid U.P. Act 1962. 6. As regards clause (c) of Section 1(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act this will apply only when there is Central Govt. notification in this behalf. We have not been shown any Central Govt. notification under clause (c) of the Section 1 (3) which brings the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad within the purview of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Hence it is clear that the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 does not apply to the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad at all. Hence the order dated 15.3.91 challenged before the learned Single Judge and any order passed under the Payment of Gratuity Act so far as it relates to the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad was wholly without jurisdiction. 7. Hence this special appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 7.5.2003 is set aside. The order dated 15.3.91 is quashed. Appeal Allowed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.8.2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, A.C.J. THE HON'BLE V.C. MISRA, J. Civil Misc. Recall Application No. 62452 of 2004 M/s Beltek India Limited ...Petitioners Versus The State of U.P. & others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Vijay Prakash Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Pradeep Kumar Sri Uma Nath Pandey S.C. Land Acquisition Act-Ss. 4,6,11-A- Acquisition of land for planned Industrial development-It is for public purpose in urgently- Normal made of taking possession is by executions possession memo by Amin-once it is done, it will be deemed that possession has been taken by respondents- Hence, application for recall of judgment dismissing writ petition, rejected. Held: Para 7 Thus it is evident from these decisions that once possession memo has been executed it has to be deemed that possession has been taken by the respondents. It may be mentioned that normal mode of taking possession by the authorities is that the Amin goes to the spot and executes a possession memo.