# Indian National Trade Union Congress v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 1091
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-13
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 810 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/indian-national-trade-union-congress-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46754
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law-Petitioner
allotted
an
accommodation
in
1996-
In
2016
allotment cancelled-asked to vacate and
pay the arrears of rent-Trade Union
registered under Act, 1926-not eligible for
allotment unless it satisfies conditions of
section 2 (1), 4 Of Act,2016 r/w Rule 5
(viii) of Rules, 2016.

W.P. dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

1 All. Indian National Trade Union Congress Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1091
respondent
no.4
passed
the
order
impugned, after referring also to the
revenue and consolidation officials joint
report dated 11.01.2019, that the petitioner
was found to have encroached upon 0.073
hectare of the said land reserved as
pashuchar bhumi.

23. The Appellate Court i.e. the court
of the Collector Ayodhya also considered
the
petitioner's
Appeal
wherein
the
petitioner had stated that no survey of the
land had been carried out and no
opportunity was given to the petitioner at
the time of joint inspection. It was found
from the record that the petitioner had
indeed encroached 0.073 hectare of land of
Gata No.3065 reserved as pashuchar bhumi
and this fact came to the notice of the
authorities on survey being carried out.

24. This Court finds no factual or
legal infirmity in the orders impugned. The
observations made in the case of Jagpal
Singh
(supra)
for
regularization
of
unauthorized
encroachments
are
only
applicable
in
exceptional
cases.
The
petitioner has not shown his case to be
exceptional.

25. For the judgments relied upon by
the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the Government Orders, it would suffice to
observe that it is evident from the
observations made hereinabove that the
same are inapplicable in the case of the
petitioner.

26. The petitioner's grievance is also
that several other persons have encroached
upon the Gaon Sabha land and they have
not been proceeded against. It is settled law
that Article 14 is not a negative concept
and there can be no parity claimed in
illegality.

27. The writ petition stands dismissed.
----------
(2021)01ILR A1091
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Misc. Bench No. 810 of 2021

Indian National Trade Union Congress
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dipak Seth, Harshita Mohan, Ratnesh
Chandra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil
Law-Petitioner
allotted
an
accommodation
in
1996-
In
2016
allotment cancelled-asked to vacate and
pay the arrears of rent-Trade Union
registered under Act, 1926-not eligible for
allotment unless it satisfies conditions of
section 2 (1), 4 Of Act,2016 r/w Rule 5
(viii) of Rules, 2016.

W.P. dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Lok Prahari Vs. St. of U.P. & ors.; Writ Petition
No. 657 of 2004 dated 01.08.2016

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J. &
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned
counsel
for
petitioner
and
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
State.
1092 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. This is a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India filed by the
Indian National Trade Union Congress
which is a Trade Union registered under the
Trade Unions Act, 1926.

3. The petitioner claims that in 1996
an accommodation was allotted to it but
subsequently that was changed to House
No. 155 Vidhayak Niwas- 2, New Darul
Safa, District- Lucknow, in 2014.

4. On being asked as to under which
provision of law the said allotment was
made we could not be informed of any
provision of law under which such
allotment had been made. Even the writ
petition does not disclose as to under which
provision of law such allotment was made.

5. In fact on 19.08.2016 itself
petitioner was informed about cancellation
of its allotment in view of pronouncement
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Lok Prahari Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.;
Writ Petition No. 657 of 2004 dated
01.08.2016 and was asked not only to
vacate the premises but pay arrears of rent
also. This order was not put to challenge,
instead, as informed by learned counsel for
petitioner, as the allotment was to be
renewed every year/ or re-allotment was to
be made, therefore, under Section 6(2) of
the Allotment of Houses under Control of
the
Estate
Department
Act,
2016
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2016') the
petitioner
applied
for
renewal
vide
application dated 09.12.2016, though, the
application at page 55 does not refer to this
provision. It is this application which was
rejected on 01.11.2017. The said order was
never put to challenge prior to filing of this
writ petition. In fact, on 13.11.2020 when
the petitioner was asked to vacate the
premises, it is only then, that it has
approached this Court not only challenging
the order dated 13.11.2020 but also the
order dated 01.11.2017, albeit, belatedly.
No reason has been given much less a
plausible one for the delay in approaching
the Court challenging the order dated
01.11.2017.

6. By the recent order dated
13.11.2020, referring to earlier orders dated
19.08.2016, 05.12.2016 and 01.11.2017,
the petitioner has been asked to deposit
arrears of rent and vacate the premises. By
the order dated 01.11.2017 petitioner's
application for renewal of allotment/reallotment had been rejected on the ground
it is not a society registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. Much
emphasis was laid by learned counsel for
petitioner that this reasoning was not
tenable in the facts of the case.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner laid
great
emphasis
on
an
order
dated
31.01.2020 which is nothing but an internal
correspondence
with
the
Principal
Secretary, Labour Department that the term
'Employees Association' is used in Section
2-L of the Act, 2016 refers to such
Employees Association which had been
recognized by the State Government and
whose head quarters are at Lucknow. The
said correspondence further goes on to say
that it is being examined as to whether
Indian National Trade Union Congress as
an employees association, is recognized by
the
State
Government
or
not.
We
categorically asked the learned counsel for
petitioner as to whether petitioner is an
employees association and also as to
whether it is recognized by the State
Government, as, only such associations are
covered for allotment of premises under the
Act, 2016, learned counsel responded by
contending that the petitioner is a Trade
1 All. Indian National Trade Union Congress Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1093
Union under the Trade Unions Act, but
could not show any recognition by the State
Government, though, he claimed benefit of
Section 2(l) of the Act, 2016 on the ground
that it was an 'employees association'.

8. In the writ petition also it has been
asserted that it is an employees association
recognized by the State Government but
without any proof being annexed with it.

9. We further asked him as to whether
this union comprises of employees of the
State Government or public undertakings
controlled by it, he stated that it comprised
of workmen. On the other question
regarding its recognition, as already stated,
he could not place before the Court any
document to show that petitioner was
recognized by the State Government.

10. We pointed out to learned counsel
for petitioner Rules known as Uttar Pradesh
(Recognition of Service Associations)
Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Rules, 1979') which have been made by the
State Government for recognition of
employees associations. These Rules are of
1979 and are still in force. Government
Servant is defined in Rule 2-(b) of Rules,
1979 to mean- any person appointed by the
Government to any civil service or post in
connection with the affairs of the State and
to whom all or any of the provisions of the
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servants
Conduct Rules, 1956 apply. Rule 5 of the
said Rules mentions the conditions for
recognition of associations under the said
Rules. As per Clause-(c) of Rule 5-
membership of an Association is required
to be restricted to a district category of
serving Government Employees (excluding
retired) and it is required to represent more
than 50% of the total strength of that
particular category. Clause-(e) of Rule 5
further goes on to say that it is necessary
that no person, who is not serving
Government servant is connected with the
affairs of the Association in order to be
eligible for recognition under the said
Rules.
Similarly,
Rule
6
speaks
of
conditions for recognition of a Federation
and Clause-(c) thereof also requires the
Federation to be comprised of recognized
associations of the same category of
Government employees and it should not
be multi-functional or multi-professional.
Rule 7 deals with condition of recognition
of Confederation. Clause-(b) thereof also
mentions that the Confederation should be
formed primarily with the object of
promoting harmonious relations amongst
the wider group of Government employees
and promoting their common service and
interest.

11. On a perusal of aforesaid Rules it
is evident that the association which is to
be recognized thereunder has to be of
serving
Government
employees.
The
aforesaid Rules 5, 6 and 7 have to be read
in consonance with Rule 2(b) of Rules,
1979 and not otherwise.

12. Now, when we come back to Act,
2016 under which renewal was sought by
petitioner i.e. under Section 6(2) thereof,
firstly, we find that the said Act was
enacted by the State Legislature to regulate
the allotment of houses under the Control
of Estate Department of Government to the
employees and Officers of the State
Government,
employees
associations,
political parties etc. Section 2(a) defines
'Allotment' to mean to authorise a person to
occupy a house under the provisions of this
Act. Section 2 (h) defines "Trust", which
the petitioner is not. Section 2(i) defines
"Society", which the petitioner is not. A
Trust which is registered under the Trust
1094 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Act. The petitioner is also not a political
party, nor a journalist.

13. The question is, is it an 'employees
association' as defined in Section 2(l) of the Act,
2016 which means an Employees Association
which is recognized by the State Government
and the head quarter of which is at Lucknow.
Now, Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel
for petitioner contends that the employees
association does not necessarily have to be an
association of employees of the State
Government. The point is, if the employees
association referred in Section 2(l), which is to
be recognized by the State Government, is not
one comprising of employees of State
Government then why recognition by the State
Government is required. We may in this regard
refer to Rule 3 of the Allotment of Houses
under Control of the Estate Department Rules,
2016 (hereinafter referred to 'the Rules, 2016')
made under the Act, 2016 which says that a
person eligible for allotment under Section 4 of
the Act, 2016 shall make an application to the
Estate Officer. Further, as per Rule 5(viii) of the
Rules, 2016 employees associations which are
recognized by the State Government with its
headquarters at Lucknow, and are working for
the welfare of Uttar Pradesh employees may be
allotted a house for a period of two years. This
Rule is not under challenge. Moreover, we have
already referred to Rules, 1979 under which the
State
Government
does
recognize
the
employees associations of serving government
employees. The property in question, allotment
or re-allotment of which is sought, is that of the
Estate Department of the Government. A Trade
Union is registered under a Central enactment
i.e. the Act, 1926 by the Registrar of Trade
Union who is a central government employee.

14. Irrespective of this, there is
nothing on record to show that petitioner is
recognized by the State Government as an
employee association so as to be covered
under Section 2(l) read with Section 4 and
6(2) of the Act, 2016.

15. Now, it is said that the application
for allotment was made under Section 6(2)
which applies to applicants other than the
applicants mentioned in Sub-Section 1 of
Section 6 of the Act, 2016. Herein also
petitioner does not fall in any category.
Type- 1 houses are reserved for Group- 'D'
employees
working
under
the
State
Government. Type- 2 is reserved for
Group-
'C'
non
gazetted
employees
working under the State Government.
Type- 3 is reserved for Group -'C' gazetted
employees
working
under
the
State
Government. The petitioner does not fall in
these categories. Type- 4 is reserved for
Group- 'B' officers working under the State
Government/ Officers of judicial serves,
journalist, society, recognized association.
Now, Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned
counsel for petitioner says that petitioner is
a recognized association, however, he is
not able to show any order of the State
Government by which it may have been
recognized nor that it falls within the
definition of Section 2(l). Type- 5, 6 and 7
houses referred in the Act, 2016 are
reserved for other categories mentioned in
Section 4 and it is not the case of petitioner
that it falls in any of the categories
mentioned therein.

16. Now, one can understand if the
petitioner has a grievance as to why, if a
Trust, Society and a Journalist can be
brought within the ambit of the Act, 2016,
the petitioner, which is a Trade Union,
should not be so brought under the purview
of the Act but this would require a
challenge either to the vires of the Act,
2016 or seeking of such other appropriate
relief as may be permissible in law, but no
renewal or allotment could have been
1 All. Naunihal Haidar Vs. Asst. Settlement of Consolidation Badaun & Ors.
1095
sought by petitioner under the Act, 2016 in
the first place, therefore, even if the reason
given in the impugned order dated
01.11.2017, challenge to which is in any
case highly belated, is that the petitioner is
not a society, that itself does not persuade
this Court to interfere in the matter by
quashing
the
said
order
unless
the
petitioner was able to satisfy the Court that
it was covered by the Act, 2016, about
which we are not satisfied at all.

17. As regards contention of learned
counsel
for
petitioner
that
the
State
Government is still seized with the matter as
to whether petitioner qualifies as an
employees association recognized by the
State Government or not in view of a letter
dated 31.01.2020, firstly, it is an internal
correspondence. Secondly, the order dated
13.11.2020 has been passed 10 months
thereafter, therefore, obviously the matter is
no longer under consideration by the State
Government. Thirdly, whether the petitioner
is covered by the Act, 2016 or not, is a legal
issue to be decided and the Courts are best
suited to decide the said issue with the
assistance of the counsel, which has been
ably provided by Shri Ratnesh Chandra, yet,
inspite of it we have not been persuaded to
come to the conclusion that petitioner is
covered by the Act, 2016 for the reasons
already mentioned hereinabove.

18. The contention of Shri Chandra that
neither the Act nor the Rules made
thereunder contain modalities for recognition,
therefore, this can not be a ground for ousting
the petitioner from its purview is also not
acceptable in view of Rules 1979 referred
above as also Rule 5(viii) of the Rules, 2016
made under the Act, 2016 and Section 2(l) of
the Act, 2016. Even if this argument is
accepted for the sake of discussion, it does
not help the petitioner, as he claims to fall in
the category of employees association which
has
to
be
recognized
by
the
State
Government under Section 2(l) and does not
claim to fall in any other category to which
the Act 2016 applies. No recognition of the
petitioner by the State Government has been
produced by it before us.

19. A Trade Union registered under the
Act, 1926 is not eligible for allotment under the
Act, 2016 unless it satisfies the conditions of
Section 2(l), Section 4 of the Act, 2016 read
with Rule 5(viii) of the Rules, 2016. As already
stated petitioner could have a grievance of
discrimination if otherwise tenable in law but it
is not possible to come to the conclusion that it
has a right of allotment, re-allotment or renewal
of allotment under the Act, 2016 as it stands
without a challenge to its vires.

20. We appreciate the efforts made by
Shri Ratnesh Chandra but in view of the
admitted factual position before us and the
express provision of law we find ourselves
unable to accede his arguments nor accept the
same. We do not find any reason to interfere
with the impugned orders.

21. We accordingly dismiss the writ
petition.
----------
(2021)01ILR A1095
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 861 of 2019

Naunihal Haidar ...Appellant
Versus
Asst. Settlement of Consolidation Badaun
& Ors. ...Respondents