# High Court of Judicature at Allahabad #42946

- **Citation:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad #42946
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-04-04
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/high-court-of-judicature-at-allahabad-42946-42946
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947.- Section 4,
12- Power of Conciliation officer-only to
arrange
and
negotiate
the
difference
between employer and employee-rejection
of conciliation on ground of laches-heldwithout jurisdiction.

Held: Para-13
Thus, under the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act,
1947
and
the
Rules
framed
thereunder
there
is
no
time
limit
prescribed for initiating the conciliation
proceedings and the Conciliation Officer
is vested with the power to mediate and
to bring about a settlement and with no
other
authority.
The
said
power
inherently includes the power to record a
failure but it does not confer any power
upon the Conciliation Officer to reject
the conciliation proceedings.
1 All Kuldeep Singh Tomar Vs. State of U.P. and another
561

## Text

560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
course
the
FIR
discloses
specific
allegations which would persuade the
Court to take cognizance of the offence
alleged against the relatives of the main
accused who are prima facie not found to
have indulged in physical and mental
torture of the complainant-wife. It is the
well settled principle laid down in cases
too numerous to mention, that if the FIR
did not disclose the commission of an
offence, the Court would be justified in
quashing the proceedings preventing the
abuse
of
the
process
of
law.
Simultaneously, the Courts are expected
to adopt a cautious approach in matters of
quashing
specially
in
cases
of
matrimonial dispute whether the FIR in
fact discloses commission of an offence
by the relatives of the principal accused or
the FIR prima facie discloses a case of
over-implication by involving the entire
family of the accused at the instance of
the complainant, who is out to settle her
scores arising out of the teething problem
or skirmish of domestic bickering while
settling down in her new matrimonial
surrounding."

20. The present matter is also
regarding matrimonial dispute in which
the revisionist who is brother-in-law of
the deceased, has been dragged to face
prosecution
without
any
specific
allegations.

21. For the aforesaid reasons and in
view of guide lines laid down in para
16(v) of Sarojben Ashwinkumar Shah
(supra) I come to the conclusion that
learned Court below has exceeded in its
jurisdiction in summoning the revisionist
under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

22. The revision is allowed. The
impugned order dated 20.4.2010 is set
aside.

23. It is made clear that observations
made herein shall not affect the merits of
the trial against other accused persons.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.04.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Misc. Single No. 1956 of 2006.

Sadanand Mishra

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Regional Conciliation Officer & Ors.

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri
Pankaj
Verma,
Sri
Misra
Dr.
Dhirendraq Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri R.P. Awasthi, Sri Ravi Prakash

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947.- Section 4,
12- Power of Conciliation officer-only to
arrange
and
negotiate
the
difference
between employer and employee-rejection
of conciliation on ground of laches-heldwithout jurisdiction.

Held: Para-13
Thus, under the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act,
1947
and
the
Rules
framed
thereunder
there
is
no
time
limit
prescribed for initiating the conciliation
proceedings and the Conciliation Officer
is vested with the power to mediate and
to bring about a settlement and with no
other
authority.
The
said
power
inherently includes the power to record a
failure but it does not confer any power
upon the Conciliation Officer to reject
the conciliation proceedings.
1 All Kuldeep Singh Tomar Vs. State of U.P. and another
561
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J)

1. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for respondents No.1 and2
and Sri Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for
respondents No.3 and 4.

2. The services of the petitioner with
respondent No.4 were dispensed with.
Therefore, according to him, an industrial
dispute had arisen. Accordingly, he made an
application
to
the
Conciliation
Officer/Assistant Labour Commissioner for
resolving the said dispute.

3. The Conciliation Officer/Assistant
Labour Commissioner by the impugned
order dated 15.2.2006 has rejected the
conciliation proceedings as barred by time.

4. The submission is that the
Conciliation Officer or the Assistant Labour
Commissioner exercising the power of the
Conciliation Officer has no jurisdiction to
reject the claim raised by the petitioner,
much-less on the ground of delay or laches.

5. It may be noted that the services
of the petitioner were dispensed with on
1.7.1999. He had applied for conciliation
of the matter on 10.11.2004 i.e. after four
years four months and nine days. The
delay
in
initiating
the
conciliation
proceedings is not material but the moot
question is whether the Conciliation
Officer has the power to reject the
conciliation proceedings on any ground or
on the ground of delay.

6.

The
aforesaid
conciliation
proceedings were initiated under the
Provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 which is para materia with that
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The
Scheme of both the aforesaid Acts
envisages for the settlement of an
Industrial Disputes by the Labour Court,
Industrial Tribunal, National Industrial
Tribunal as the case may be and for
conciliation of the dispute by the
Conciliation Officer/Conciliation Board
or through arbitration.

7. Section 12 of the Industrial
Disputes Act provides that where any
industrial
dispute
exists
or
is
apprehended, other than relating to public
utility service, the Conciliation Officer
shall hold conciliation proceedings in the
prescribed manner and if a settlement is
arrived at in the course of conciliation
proceedings, he shall send a report to the
appropriate Government along with the
settlement signed by the parties to the
dispute and in case it is not possible to
arrive at a settlement, he will close the
investigation and submit a report in that
regard to the appropriate Government
setting forth the steps taken by him for
resolving the disputes and the reasons on
account of which the settlement could not
be reached.

8. There is no provision prescribing
any time limit for initiation of conciliation
proceedings and the Conciliation Officer
has not been empowered under the
aforesaid Act to reject the conciliation
proceedings on any ground.

9. Section 4-F of the U.P.Industrial
Disputes
Act,
1947
provides
for
appointment of a Conciliation Officer for
the purposes of mediating and promoting
the settlement of Industrial Disputes in the
manner prescribed and the powers of
Conciliation Officer in this regard have
been described under Section 5-D of the
said Act.
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

10. Section 23 of the said Act
empowers the State Government to make
rules regarding the subjects specified
therein and clause (d) of Section 23
includes "the procedure to be followed in
conciliation proceedings". Thus, the State
Government is vested with the power to
make rules pertaining to the procedure
which is to be followed in the conciliation
proceedings.

11. In pursuance to the above rule
making power contained in Section 23 of
the Act, U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules,
1957 have been framed and enforced. The
said rules vide Rule 4 provides for
powers,
procedure
and
duties
of
Conciliation Officer. The aforesaid Rule 4
for the sake of convenience is reproduced
herein below:

"4. Powers, procedure and duties
of Conciliation Officers. - (1) On receipt
of information about an existing or
apprehended
industrial
dispute,
the
Conciliation Officer may, if he considers
necessary, forthwith arrange to interview
both the employers and the workmen
concerned with the dispute at such place
and time as he may deem fit and
endeavour to bring about a settlement
about the dispute in question.

(2) The Conciliation Officer may
hold a meeting of the representatives of
the parties jointly or of each party
separately.

(3) The Conciliation Officer shall
conduct the proceedings expeditiously
and in such manner as he may deem fit.

(4) Where a reference has been made
by the State Government in the matter of
a dispute under Section 4-K of the Act to
the Tribunal or Labour Court or the
Adjudicator, the Conciliation Officer
concerned shall forthwith forward to the
Tribunal or the Labour Court or the
Adjudicator concerned, the file of the
Conciliation Board relating to that matter,
immediately after the application in Form
I is filed by the Union."

12. The aforesaid Rule contemplates
that where Conciliation Officer receives
information about the existence of an
industrial dispute or that such a dispute is
apprehended, he he obliged to arrange
interview of both the employer and the
workman
concerned
and
to
make
endeavour to bring about a settlement
expeditiously and in the manner as may
be deemed fit. In case the settlement is
arrived it shall be recorded in the
prescribed proforma and got signed and
shall be sent to the State Government
along with the report.

13. Thus, under the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and the Rules framed
thereunder
there
is
no
time
limit
prescribed for initiating the conciliation
proceedings and the Conciliation Officer
is vested with the power to mediate and to
bring about a settlement and with no other
authority. The said power inherently
includes the power to record a failure but
it does not confer any power upon the
Conciliation
Officer
to
reject
the
conciliation proceedings.

14. Learned counsel appearing for
the respondents were at a loss to justify
the authority of the Conciliation Officer to
dismiss the conciliation proceedings as
barred by time as under the scheme of the
Act no time limit has been prescribed for
initiating the conciliation proceedings.
1 All Sadanand Mishra Vs. Regional Concillation Officer & Ors.
563

15. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, I find that the
conciliation
officer/Assistant
Labour
Commissioner exceeded its jurisdiction in
dismissing the conciliation proceedings as
barred by time. Therefore, the impugned
order dated 15.2.2006 passed in C.P. Case
No.Nil/2004 contained in annexure - 1 to
the petitioner is held to be without
jurisdiction. Accordingly, a writ of
certiorari is issued quashing the same with
the
direction
to
the
Conciliation
Officer/Assistant Labour Commissioner,
Faizabad to proceed with the conciliation
proceedings and to take appropriate steps
in
accordance
with
law
most
expeditiously.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.04.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE,
J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2155 Of 2013

Vivek Chandra Bhaskar and another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Santosh Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri A.K.Maurya

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Habeous
Corpus petition by impugned orderJudicial Magistrate-placing reliance upon
High School Certificate-found the girl
minor-ordered for detention in Nari
Niketan-while from Radiologist reportDoctor
found
above
18

yrs-girl
expressed her extreme desire to join the
company of her husband-as already
enjoying matrimonial life-Magistrate
wrongly
relied
upon
High
School
certificate-liberty
given
to
join
the
company of her desire-petition allowed.

Held: Para-14
In view of the statement of the Girl given
before
the
J.M.
refuting
all
the
allegations of coercion exercised by the
petitioner no.1, showing her complete
willingness and approval to her marital
status with the petitioner no.1 which
according to her she has already been
enjoying, considering her blatant refusal
to go along with her father, and also
keeping in view the observations made
by the Apex Court and giving due weight
to the irreconcilable conflict of the age
shown in High School certificate with the
age
given
in
medical
examination
referred to above, I think that the
continuation of Sonal's detention in Nari
Niketan is not justified. I therefore,
direct that she be set at liberty with
immediate affect.

Case Law discussed:
1991 Laws (S.C.) 930

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J)

1. This Criminal Writ Petition has
been filed on behalf of the petitioners
seeking the direction in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the impugned
order dated 1.2.2013 and 4.2.2013 in
application no.12 of 2013 and also the
subsequent order dated 6.2.2013 passed
by
the
learned
Judicial
Magistrate
Chandauli in case Crime No. 02 of 2013
State Vs. Vivek and also praying for a
direction to the respondent no.5 to hand
over the girl Sonal petitioner no.2 to
petitioner no.1 who claims himself to be
the husband of girl Sonal.

2. In brief the facts giving rise to the
present controversy are like this:-