# Jagran Prakashan Ltd v. Shri Krishna Mohan Trivedi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 2450
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-09
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 358 of 2024
- **Bench:** Arun Bhansali, C.J. Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagran-prakashan-ltd-v-shri-krishna-mohan-trivedi-ors-52100
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Labour Law - Uttar Pradesh Industrial
Disputes Act - 4-K- Reference of disputes
to
Labour
Court
or
Tribunal
-
Maintainability - The impugned order
neither in the category of judgment, order
or award passed by the Tribunal, Court or
Statutory Arbitrator nor an order passed in
exercise
of
appellate
or
revisional
jurisdiction by the Government or Officer
or Authority - Title of an application/claim
and reference does not determine the
jurisdiction of a forum- The same only
depends
on
the
substance
of
the
application/claim/demand. (Para - 11,
27)

Respondent-workman
approached
Deputy
Labour Commissioner - demand illegal and
unjustified termination of service - Appellant
filed written St.ment before the Authority and
Authority referred the dispute to the Labour
Court, under Section 4-K of the UPID Act - The
workman filed his St.ment of claim - During the
pendency of the proceedings - already pending
for over four years - Writ Petition filed on
11.12.2023 - questioning the very reference
before the Labour Court - Writ Court - Held,
reference can be made by the St. Government -
dismissed - Hence, instant special appeal -
Dismissed (Para - 13, 14, 15, 32)

Held: The provisions of section 4-K reveal that
industrial dispute, contained in the First
Schedule, is required to be referred to a Labour
Court. The reference was made to provisions of
Section 16-A of the WJ Act and 2A of the Central
ID Act in the demand, before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner and in the claim before the
Labour Court, which led to the dismissal of the
workman, wherein reference has been made to
the dispute pertaining to the recommendations
5 All. Jagran Prakashan Ltd. Vs. Shri Krishna Mohan Trivedi & Ors.
2451
and implementation of the Wage Board, it
cannot bring the subject matter of dispute
as that of wages, i.e., instead of the same
being in relation to the dismissal, the same
would be that of wages. As the dispute is
pending before the Labour Court for over
four years and it has not yet proceeded even
to the stage of cross-examination. (Para -
29,33)

Appeal is dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
consequential recruitment process which
was adopted by the employer/IIT Kanpur,
cannot be held to be an arbitrary exercise
which may warrant any interference in the
intra court appeal.

CONCLUSION

47. In view of the facts and relevant
authorities of Apex Court holding the field
and in view of the discussion made above,
we are of the considered opinion that there
is no infirmity in the recruitment process
adopted by the employee/IIT Kanpur.

48. In an Intra-Court Special Appeal,
no interference is usually warranted unless
palpable infirmities or perversities are
noticed on a plain reading of the impugned
judgment and order. In the facts and
circumstances of the instant case, on a plain
reading of the impugned judgment and
order, we do not notice any such palpable
infirmity or perversity. As such, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order dated 11.3.2024. The
judgement and order of learned Single
Judge dated 11.3.2024 dismissing the writ
petition suffers from no error of law and
same is upheld.

49. For reasons stated above, the
Special Appeal is liable to be dismissed and
stands, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2450
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 358 of 2024
Jagran Prakashan Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Shri Krishna Mohan Trivedi & Ors.
 ..Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Chandra Bhan Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Man Mohan Singh

Labour Law - Uttar Pradesh Industrial
Disputes Act - 4-K- Reference of disputes
to
Labour
Court
or
Tribunal
-
Maintainability - The impugned order
neither in the category of judgment, order
or award passed by the Tribunal, Court or
Statutory Arbitrator nor an order passed in
exercise
of
appellate
or
revisional
jurisdiction by the Government or Officer
or Authority - Title of an application/claim
and reference does not determine the
jurisdiction of a forum- The same only
depends
on
the
substance
of
the
application/claim/demand. (Para - 11,
27)

Respondent-workman
approached
Deputy
Labour Commissioner - demand illegal and
unjustified termination of service - Appellant
filed written St.ment before the Authority and
Authority referred the dispute to the Labour
Court, under Section 4-K of the UPID Act - The
workman filed his St.ment of claim - During the
pendency of the proceedings - already pending
for over four years - Writ Petition filed on
11.12.2023 - questioning the very reference
before the Labour Court - Writ Court - Held,
reference can be made by the St. Government -
dismissed - Hence, instant special appeal -
Dismissed (Para - 13, 14, 15, 32)

Held: The provisions of section 4-K reveal that
industrial dispute, contained in the First
Schedule, is required to be referred to a Labour
Court. The reference was made to provisions of
Section 16-A of the WJ Act and 2A of the Central
ID Act in the demand, before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner and in the claim before the
Labour Court, which led to the dismissal of the
workman, wherein reference has been made to
the dispute pertaining to the recommendations
5 All. Jagran Prakashan Ltd. Vs. Shri Krishna Mohan Trivedi & Ors.
2451
and implementation of the Wage Board, it
cannot bring the subject matter of dispute
as that of wages, i.e., instead of the same
being in relation to the dismissal, the same
would be that of wages. As the dispute is
pending before the Labour Court for over
four years and it has not yet proceeded even
to the stage of cross-examination. (Para -
29,33)

Appeal is dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. M/s Vajara Yojana Seed Farm, Kalyanpur &
ors. Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, U.P.,
Kanpur & anr.: (2003) 1 UPLBEC 496

2. Sheet Gupta Vs St. of U.P. & ors. : AIR 2010
ALL 46 (FB)

3. Central Mine Planning and Design Institute
Limited Vs U.O.I.& anr.: (2001) 2 SCC 588.

4. Jagaran Prakashan Limited Vs Presiding
Officer, Labour Court : 2020 (167) FLR 412

5. Bureau Chief Rastriya Sahara & anr.Vs Labour
Commissioner, U.P. & ors. (Writ C No. 23241 of
2016)

6. Hind Filters Limited & anr.Vs Hind Filters
Employees' Union & anr.: 2023 INSC 799

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,
C.J.)

1. Heard Shri Sanjay Kaushal, learned
Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Chandra
Bhan Gupta and Shri Manoj Kumar Dubey,
learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Man
Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent
No. 1 and Shri Manish Goyal, learned
Additional Advocate General, assisted by
Shri Ankit Gaur, learned Standing Counsel
for the State-respondents.

2. This special appeal, under Chapter
VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court
Rules (for short 'Rules'), is directed against
order dated 11.12.2023, passed by learned
Single Judge in Writ - C No. 39505 of
2023, whereby the said writ petition along
with 60 other connected writ petitions, filed
by
the
appellant/petitioner-Company,
aggrieved of the reference made by the
State Government to the Labour Court,
Gautam Buddh Nagar, under Section 4-K of
the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (for short 'UPID Act'), has been
dismissed.

3. The office has reported the appeal
as barred by 98 days.

4. An application, supported by
affidavit, seeking condonation of delay in
filing the appeal has been filed.

5. Though the affidavit, giving out
reasons for condonation of delay, is very
cursory and only formality sake, as the
application is not contested by learned
counsel for the respondents, the delay in
filing the appeal is condoned.

6. The office has also raised objection
that the appeal appears to be not
maintainable, in view of the Chapter VIII
Rule 5 of the Rules. Learned counsel for the
respondents has also raised objection to the
maintainability of the appeal and placed
reliance on M/s Vajara Yojana Seed
Farm,
Kalyanpur
and
others
Vs.
Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, U.P.,
Kanpur and another : (2003) 1 UPLBEC
496.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the issue raised about the
maintainability has no substance as the
present case does not fall in any of the
categories, wherein the special appeal has
been held to be not maintainable. Reliance
is placed on Sheet Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
2452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and Others : AIR 2010 ALL 46 (FB) and
Central Mine Planning and Design
Institute Limited Vs. Union of India and
Anothers : (2001) 2 SCC 588.

8.

We
have
considered
the
submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties on the aspect of maintainability
of the special appeal. The provisions of
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules, inter alia,
read as under:

"5. Special Appeal: - An appeal
shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not
being a judgment passed in the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction) in respect of a
decree or order made by a Court subject to
the superintendence of the Court and not
being an order made in the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of
its power of superintendence or in the
exercise of criminal jurisdiction or in the
exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by
Article 226 or Article 227 of the
Constitution in respect of any judgment,
order or award - (a) of a tribunal, Court or
statutory arbitrator made or purported to
be made in the exercise or purported
exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar
Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with
respect to any of the matters enumerated in
the State List or the Concurrent List in the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b)
of the Government or any officer or
authority, made or purported to be made in
the exercise or purported exercise of
appellate or revisional jurisdiction under
any such Act of one Judge."

9. A Full Bench of this Court, in the
case of Sheet Gupta (supra), wherein on
account of conflict in two Division Bench
Judgement of this Court including in
Vajara Yojana Seed Farm (supra), relied
on by learned counsel for the respondent,
came to the following conclusion:

"18. Having given our anxious
consideration to the various plea raised by
the learned counsel for the parties, we find
that from the perusal of Chapter VIII Rule
5 of the Rules a special appeal shall lie
before this Court from the judgment passed
by one Judge of the Court. However, such
special appeal will not lie in the following
circumstances:

1. The judgment passed by one
Judge in the exercise of appellate
jurisdiction, in respect of a decree or order
made
by
a
Court
subject
to
the
Superintendence of the Court;

2. The order made by one Judge
in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction;

3. The order made by one Judge
in
the
exercise
of
the
power
of
Superintendence of the High Court;

4. The order made by one Judge
in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction;

5. The order made by one Judge
in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by
Article 226 or Article 227 of the
Constitution of India in respect of any
judgment, order or award by

(i) the Tribunal,

(ii) Court or

(iii) Statutory Arbitrator

made or purported to be made in the
exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under
any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act,
with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the
State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution of India;

6. The order made by one Judge
in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by
Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of
India in respect of any judgment, order or
award of
5 All. Jagran Prakashan Ltd. Vs. Shri Krishna Mohan Trivedi & Ors.
2453

(i) the Government, or

(ii) any Officer or

(iii) Authority

made or purported to be made in
the exercise or purported exercise of
appellate or revisional jurisdiction under
any such Act, i.e., under any Uttar Pradesh
Act or under any Central Act, with respect
to any of the matters enumerated in the
State List or the Concurrent List in the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of
India."

10. A perusal of the above would
reveal that the order made by one Judge in
the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by
Article 226 or Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, in respect of any
judgement, order or award by (i) the
Tribunal, (ii) Courts or (iii) Statutory
Arbitrator, made or purported to be made in
exercise
or
purported
exercise
of
jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or
under any Central Act with respect to any
of the matters enumerated in the State List
or the Concurrent List in the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution of India and
the order made by one Judge in the exercise
of jurisdiction by Article 226 or Article 227
of the Constitution of India in respect of any
judgment, order or award of (i) the
Government or (ii) any Officer or (iii)
Authority made or purported to be made in
the exercise or purported exercise of
appellate or revisional jurisdiction under
any such Act, i.e., under any Uttar Pradesh
Act or under any Central Act with respect
to any of the matters enumerated in the
State List or the Concurrent List in the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of
India,
the
appeal
would
not
be
maintainable.

11. In the present case, the order
impugned has been passed by the State
Government exercising powers under the
UPID Act and against the said order, the
judgment impugned has been passed by
learned Single Judge. The said impugned
order would fall neither in the category of
judgment, order or award passed by the
Tribunal, Court or Statutory Arbitrator nor
an order passed in exercise of appellate or
revisional jurisdiction by the Government
or Officer or Authority and therefore, it
cannot be said that the present appeal,
against the order passed by learned Single
Judge, would not be maintainable. The
judgment in the case of Vajara Yojana
Seed Farm (supra), would have no
application to the present case, wherein the
Division Bench was dealing with appeals
arising out of writ petitions in which the
award of Labour Court was challenged,
which is not the case in the present appeal.

12. Having cleared the decks about
the maintainability of the appeal, the appeal
is being considered on merit.

13.

The
respondent-workman
approached
the
Deputy
Labour
Commissioner, Department of Labour,
Uttar Pradesh, Gautam Buddh Nagar
(NOIDA), raising demand regarding illegal
and unjustified termination of his service
vide order dated 05.03.2016. In the
application,
made
by
the
workman/claimant, reference was made to
Section 16-A of the Working Journalists
and
Other
Newspaper
Employees
(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1955 (for short 'WJ Act')
and Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (for short 'Central ID Act'). The
appellant-Management, filed its written
statement before the Authority and the
Authority, by its order dated 01.08.2019,
referred the dispute to the Labour Court,
Gautam Buddh Nagar under Section 4-K of
2454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the UPID Act. The respondent-workman
filed his statement of claim before the
Labour Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar and
the same was contested by the appellant. A
rejoinder was filed, list of documents were
submitted and preliminary issue as to
whether the domestic enquiry was held
against the principles of natural justice was
framed on 20.09.2021, whereafter it
appears that the matter is stuck at the said
stage, wherein the same is fixed for crossexamination of the workman by the
appellant-employer.

14. During the pendency of the
proceedings before the Labour Court,
which was already pending for over four
years, present writ petition came to be filed
on 11.12.2023 questioning the very
reference before the Labour Court under
provisions of Section 4-K of the UPID Act.

15. Learned Single Judge, with
reference
to
judgment
in
Jagaran
Prakashan
Limited
Vs.
Presiding
Officer, Labour Court : 2020 (167) FLR
412 and Bureau Chief Rastriya Sahara
and another Vs. Labour Commissioner,
U.P. and others: Writ - C No. 23241 of
2016 and other connected matters
decided on 03.04.2023, wherein the
petitioner -Jagaran Prakashan was also
a petitioner in Writ - C No. 22872 of
2016, came to the conclusion that the Court
has already taken a view that reference can
be made by the State Government and the
said orders having not been assailed by the
appellant, came to the conclusion that no
case for interference was made out and
consequently, dismissed the writ petitions.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant
made vehement submissions that the two
judgments, relied on by the learned Single
Judge, only deal with the issue of the State
Government
being
the
appropriate
Government, which was not the issue raised
in the present writ petition. The core issue
was as to whether the reference could be
made under the UPID Act or the same was
required to be made under the Central ID
Act by the State Government and that too
to the Industrial Tribunal and not the
Labour Court. Further submissions have
been made that the workman, in his demand
before he Deputy Labour Commissioner,
made specific reference to provisions of
Section 16-A of the WJ Act and Section 2A
of the Central ID Act and that as the plea, in
the demand notice, before the Deputy
Labour Commissioner and the claim,
before the Labour Court, are based on the
provisions of WJ Act in relation to the
wages, the said subject matter would fall
within the Third Schedule of the Central ID
Act and in terms of Section 10(1)(d) of the
Central ID Act, the dispute could only be
referred to the Industrial Tribunal and as,
admittedly, the Labour Court at NOIDA is
not an Industrial Tribunal, the matter could
not have been referred to the Labour Court.
Submissions have also been made that the
proviso to Section 10(1)(d) of the Central
ID Act would not be attracted in the present
case as according to the respondent's own
assertion, 150 workmen are affected by the
demand of wages raised, which resulted in
his termination and therefore, the judgment
impugned passed by learned Single Judge
as well as the reference made by the State
Government deserves to be set aside.
Reliance has been placed on Hind Filters
Limited and Another Vs. Hind Filters
Employees' Union and Another : 2023
INSC 799.

17.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-workman
contested
the
submissions made. It was reiterated that the
issue raised is squarely covered by orders
5 All. Jagran Prakashan Ltd. Vs. Shri Krishna Mohan Trivedi & Ors.
2455
passed in appellant's own challenge laid
earlier to the jurisdiction of the State
Government and referring the dispute to the
Labour Court and as such, the learned
Single Judge was justified in dismissing the
writ petitions. It is emphasized that
irrespective of making reference to the
provisions of WJ Act and Central ID Act,
the crux of the matter is that the respondentworkman had questioned the validity of his
dismissal by the appellant-employer, which
dispute squarely falls within the Second
Schedule of Central ID Act and First
Schedule of UPID Act and has rightly been
referred to the Labour Court by the State
Government under provisions of Section 4K of the UPID Act, which is, in substance,
pari materia with provisions of Section 10
of the Central ID Act and therefore, the
appeal deserves dismissal.

18.
 We
have
considered
the
submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the material
available on record.

19. It is surprising, as to how, after
four years of the reference made by the
State Government on 01.08.2019, in the
year 2023, after contesting the matter
before the Labour Court, the issue of
reference being without jurisdiction has
dawned on the petitioner-appellant.

20. Be that as it may, the plea, raised
is that the present dispute, could not have
been referred to the Labour Court though
the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gautam
Buddh Nagar had the jurisdiction to refer
the matter, which could only be referred to
an Industrial Tribunal. The foundation of
the said arguments, as noticed hereinbefore,
lies in the fact that the demand raised,
before the Deputy Labour Commissioner,
by the workman made reference to
provisions of Section 16-A of the WJ Act
and Section 2A of the Central ID Act. The
said aspect was reiterated in the claim, filed
before the Labour Court, pursuant to the
reference made by the State Government.

21. A perusal of the demand raised
before the Deputy Labour Commissioner as
well as the claim filed before the Labour
Court would reveal that though the same in
the title/subject matter makes reference to
the said two statutes, in the demand raised
and claim filed, reference to the provisions
of WJ Act has been made only as a precursor, which led to the dispute and
ultimate dismissal of the workman.

22. The prayer made before the
Deputy Labour Commissioner, inter alia,
reads as under:

"PRAYER

In view of the submissions made
hereinabove and also in view of the facts
and circumstances of the case, the
Claimant/workman prays for intervention
as per law for facilitating justice to the
Claimant/workman in getting back his
employment with the management/opposite
party who deprived him from that. The
management be made to see reason and
recall the impugned order alleged to have
been issued on 05.03.2016 along with the
report of the sham enquiry conducted by it
and
advised
to
reinstate
the
Claimant/workman in service with full back
wages and consequential benefits of
service. The Claimant/workman also prays
for any other order or orders as the
Esteemed Authority may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.

The Claimant/workman prays
accordingly."
2456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

23. Similarly, in the claim filed before
the Labour Court, the following prayer was
made:

"PRAYER

In view of the submissions made
hereinabove by the Workman/Applicant, it
is most respectfully prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the
Management to:

i) Reinstate the Workman in
service by quashing and setting aside
alleged order dated 05.03.2016 passed on
the basis of the findings of defective enquiry
conducted by a biased and prejudiced
Enquiry Officer and by quashing and
setting
aside
the
illegal
suspension/termination of the workman by
allowing him to resume his duties with back
wages and continuity of service and with all
other consequential reliefs applicable to his
service with the Management as if his
services were never terminated;

ii) Make payment of Pay and
Allowances for the period of illegal
suspension/termination with admissible
interest;

iii) Pay costs of this litigation;
and

iv) Pass any other order/orders
as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case."

24. A bare perusal of the above would
reveal that the workman has sought setting
aside of the order of termination, agitating
the enquiry as defective and has claimed
back wages and continuity in service with
other consequential reliefs along with pay
and
allowances
for
the
period
of
suspension/termination with admissible
interest. No relief worth the name in
relation to the wages in terms of the
provisions of the WJ Act and the
implementation of the recommendation of
the Wage Board and payment of the revised
wages has been sought/made.

25. The order of reference made by
the Deputy Labour Commissioner dated
01.08.2019, inter alia, reads as under:

^^vkS|ksfxd fookn dk fooj.k

D;k lsok;kstd }kjk vius deZpkjh
d`".k eksgu f=osnh] iq= Jh vfuy dqekj frokjh]
in bysfDVaf'k;u dh lsok,a fnukad 05&03&2016
dks lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr vFkok oS/kkfud
gS\ ;fn ugha] rks lacaf/kr deZpkjh vius lsok;kstd
ls fdl fgr ykHk@ vkuqrks"k 1⁄4fjfyQ1⁄2 ikus dk
vf/kdkjh gS ,oa vU; fdl\ fooj.k lfgrA

1⁄4ih0ds0flag1⁄2

mi Jek;qDr] m0iz0

uks,Mk] xkSrecq) uxj

fnukad 1-8-19^^

26. A perusal of the above would also
reveal that the reference made is in relation
to the validity of the order of termination
dated
05.03.2016
and
no
reference
whatsoever has been made to the element
of wages. Admittedly, the Second Schedule
of the Central ID Act, which enumerates
matters within the jurisdiction of the
Labour Court provides 'discharge or
dismissal
of
workmen
including
reinstatement of, or grant of relief to,
workmen
wrongfully
dismissed'
and
similar is the position in the UPID Act,
wherein in the First Schedule, identical
entry has been indicated.

27. It is well settled that the title of an
application/claim and reference made
therein does not determine the jurisdiction
of a forum. The same only depends on the
substance of the application/claim/demand.
As such the reliance placed solely on the
reference made to provisions of WJ Act and
Central ID Act by the appellant, cannot be
accepted.
5 All. Dheeraj Vs. Smt. Chetna Goswami
2457

28. Provisions of Section 4-K of the
UPID Act, inter alia, reads as under:

"4-K. Reference of disputes to
Labour Court or Tribunal - Where the
State Government is of opinion that any
industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it
may at any time by order in writing refer the
dispute or any matter appearing to be
connected with, or relevant to, the dispute to
a Labour Court if the matter of industrial
dispute is one of those contained in the First
Schedule, or to a Tribunal if the matter of
dispute is one contained in the First Schedule
or the Second Schedule for adjudication.

Provided that where the dispute
relates to any matter specified in the Second
Schedule and is not likely to affect more than
one hundred workmen, the State Government
may, if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a
Labour Court."

29. A perusal of the above provisions reveal
that industrial dispute, contained in the First
Schedule, is required to be referred to a Labour
Court. The plea, sought to be raised by the
appellant-petitioner only on account of the fact
that reference was made to provisions of Section
16-A of the WJ Act and 2A of the Central ID Act
in the demand, before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner and in the claim before the Labour
Court, enumerating the events, which led to the
dismissal of the workman, wherein reference has
been made to the dispute pertaining to the
recommendations and implementation of the
Wage Board, by itself, cannot bring the subject
matter of dispute as that of wages, i.e., instead of
the same being in relation to the dismissal, the
same would be that of wages. The very fact that
the Labour Court has framed preliminary issue
about validity of the domestic enquiry also
substantiates the said aspect.

30. Insofar as, reliance placed on the
judgment in the case of Hind Filters Limited
(supra) is concerned, the subject matter of the
dispute referred by the Labour Commissioner as
noticed in para 10 of the judgment, pertains to
wages only, which is not the case in the reference
made in the present case, as such, the said
judgment has no application to the present case.

31. In view of the above facts situation, the
plea, raised by the appellant, wherein there is an
admission
pertaining
to
the
appropriate
Government being the State Government in light
of the decided cases of the appellant-organization
as laid down by learned Single Judge, the fresh
plea raised, based only on the indications made in
the demand and the claim, has no substance.

32. Consequently, no case is made out for
interference in the judgment impugned passed
by the learned Single Judge though on different
grounds. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

33. As the dispute is pending before the
Labour Court for over four years and it has not
yet proceeded even to the stage of crossexamination on the aspect of fairness of the
enquiry, the Labour Court is directed to proceed
with the matter with utmost expedition as the
termination pertains to the year 2016.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2457
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

First Appeal No. 373 of 2024

Dheeraj ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Chetna Goswami ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Satyendra Narayan Singh