# L.S. Sharma v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I), Ghaziabad and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 557
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-07-09
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/l-s-sharma-v-presiding-officer-labour-court-i-ghaziabad-and-others-40180
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
558
S.C.
Industrial dispute Act, reference by
Govt.-statutory duty of labour court- to
consider the case of the respective
parties and the evidence adduced by
them- on failure-award cannot sustains.

Held- Para 5

In this view of the matter, in my opinion,
the labour court has miserably failed to
perform its statutory duty conferred
upon it and as held by the Apex Court in
a decision reported in [2001 (90) FLR
754] (Supreme Court); Sapan Kumar
Pandit Versus U.P. State Electricity Board
and
others.
The
provisions
of
law
indicate that if in the opinion of the
Government, an industrial dispute exists
then Government can make a reference
and the labour court is under statutory
obligation to answer the same.

Case law relied on:
2001(90) FLR 754

## Text

2 All] L.S. Sharma V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I), Ghaziabad and others
557
of Auto Rickshaws. It is alleged that the
fee imposed is unreasonable.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of the Nagar Palika Parishad
and we have perused the same. In para 5 it
is stated that the petitioners had tried to
create confusion between Tempo and
Auto Rickshaw. It is stated that tempo
consists of 7 passengers whereas Auto
Rickshaw consists of 2 or 4 passengers as
indicated in the G.O. dated 29.9.92 issued
by the U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation vide Annexure CA-1. In para
7 of the counter affidavit it is stated that
the State Government imposed licence
fees on Auto Rickshaws after following
the legal procedure. In para 12 of the
counter affidavit it is denied that the
Nagar Palika Parishad is in the habit of
imposing illegal taxes on the Auto
Rickshaw. It is stated in para 14 that the
licence fee has been levied in accordance
with law in order to maintain the roads,
for providing light, sanitations and other
facilities. In para 19 it is stated that the
letter dated 28.6.99 indicates that the
same had been sent for publication to the
Govt. Press, Allahabad. The State of U.P.
had framed model bye-laws and sent them
for implementation. In para 20 it is stated
that the bye-laws have been enforced on
account of the G.O. of the State Govt.
dated 15.2.99, and as such there is no
need of approval by the State Govt. In
para 21 it is stated that the publication has
been made in Rashtirya Sahara which is a
daily news paper having wide circulation
all over U.P. The allegation that local
inhabitants were not in a position to see
the advertisement was denied.

7. We have also perused the
rejoinder affidavit.

Annexure 3 to the petition indicates
that the fees for licence of Auto Rickshaw
is Rs.500/- per year which works out to
about Rs.40/- per month. Hence the
impugned fee is not in anyway exorbitant
or arbitrary. Similar notification imposing
licence fee on vehicles, nursing homes,
insurance companies, etc. has been upheld
by us in Writ Petition No. 14037 of 1999
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus
Nagar Nigam, Allahabad decided on
19.5.2003. In this decision we followed
the decision of the Division Bench in
Chakresh Kumar Jain Versus State of
U.P. 2001 (3) UPLBEC 2483. As stated in
paras 14 & 17 of the counter affidavit,
several services are being provided by the
Nagar Palika in this connection, and
hence it cannot be said that there is no
quid pro quo.

8. As regards Section 132 of the
U.P. Municipalities Act the same has no
applicability because that relates to taxes
and not fees. Thus there is no force in this
petition. The writ petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 9.7.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 9693 Of 1997.

L.S. Sharma

...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding officer, Labour Court (I), U.P.,
Ghaziabad and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.C. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.R. Agrawal
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
558
S.C.
Industrial dispute Act, reference by
Govt.-statutory duty of labour court- to
consider the case of the respective
parties and the evidence adduced by
them- on failure-award cannot sustains.

Held- Para 5

In this view of the matter, in my opinion,
the labour court has miserably failed to
perform its statutory duty conferred
upon it and as held by the Apex Court in
a decision reported in [2001 (90) FLR
754] (Supreme Court); Sapan Kumar
Pandit Versus U.P. State Electricity Board
and
others.
The
provisions
of
law
indicate that if in the opinion of the
Government, an industrial dispute exists
then Government can make a reference
and the labour court is under statutory
obligation to answer the same.

Case law relied on:
2001(90) FLR 754

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

1. By means of this writ petition
under Article 226 of the constitution of
India, petitioner-workman has challenged
the award dated 16th August, 1996 passed
by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court
(I), Ghaziabad in Adjudication Case No.
511 of 1994. The following dispute was
referred to the labour Court:

"D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed Jh ,y0,l0
'kekZ] iq= Jh gj izlkn 'kekZ] LVsuksxzkQj dks fnukad 13-275 ls lsok ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok
oS/kkfud gS? ;fn ugha] rks lEcfU/kr Jfed D;k ykHk
{kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k
lfgr?"

2. The Labour Court issued notice to
the parties and allowed the parties to
exchange
their
pleadings
and
lead
evidence. On the pleadings and evidence
adduced by the parties, the labour court
framed following seven additional issues
apart from reference made to it:

(1) Whether the reference is illegal?

(2) Whether
the
labour
Court
has
jurisdiction to hear the matter?

(3) Whether the transfer order dated
11.1.1975 is binding on the workman
concerned, if so, whether the workman
concerned is disobeying the transfer
order?

(4) Whether
the
workman
has
voluntarily abandoned the employment?

(5) Whether the workman is entitled for
relief of reinstatement?

(6) To what further relief the workman is
entitled?

(7) Whether the workman has utilised
four days' leave and thereafter he has not
presented himself for employment, if so,
what is the effect of the absence on this
reference?

3. By the impugned award the
labour court decided the additional issues
in the following manner:

Additional issue no. 1- against the
employer.

Additional issue No. 2-The labour court
found that the reference is maintainable
before it and it has jurisdiction to hear the
same.

Additional issue No. 3- The labour court
have recorded findings that the transfer
order of the workman was not contrary to
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] L.S. Sharma V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I), Ghaziabad and others
559
the law, therefore, the workman was not
justified in not complying the same.

Additional issue No. 4- The labour court
arrived at the conclusion that the
workman has voluntarily abandoned the
employment and he has not joined his
services after his transfer to Ahemdabad.

Additional issue Nos. 5 and 6- The
labour court has found that since the
workman has not complied with the
transfer order and has rushed up to the
Court, therefore, it was not necessary to
hold a domestic enquiry by the employer
particularly when it has already been held
that
the
workman
has
voluntarily
abandoned the employment.

Additional issue No. 7-The labour court
has recorded finding regarding the effect
of the workman's status after he has been
transferred by impugned order as to
whether he was entitled for four days'
leave or not and finally labour court has
found that the termination of the services
of the workman by the employer w.e.f.
12.2.1975 was valid and legal and the
workman is not entitled for any relief.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award
workman approached this Court. It is not
disputed that the letter of appointment
dated 26th October, 1971 issued to the
workman clearly states that the workman
is being appointed on the post of
Stenographer at its Ghaziabad office. The
workman stated that there is no such term
and condition which could ask him to be
transferred
from
Ghaziabad.
The
workman has taken up the defence that
because of his participation in the trade
union activities, he has been victimised by
the employer by way of transferring him
at Ahemdabad contrary to the terms and
conditions of the appointment letter. This
fact was not denied by the employer in the
rejoinder affidavit. But as stated above,
the award of the labour court only deals
with the additional issues framed by the
labour court and does not deal with the
reference made to it and answered to the
reference only in one sentence which is
the last sentence of the award.

5. In this view of the matter, in my
opinion, the labour court has miserably
failed to perform its statutory duty
conferred upon it and as held by the Apex
Court in a decision reported in [2001 (90)
FLR 754] (Supreme Court); Sapan
Kumar
Pandit
Versus
U.P.
State
Electricity
Board
and
others.
The
provisions of law indicate that if in the
opinion of the Government, an industrial
dispute exists then Government can make
a reference and the labour court is under
statutory obligation to answer the same.

6. From the facts of the present case,
it is clear that the labour court except for
answering the additional issues has not
considered the reference made to it by the
authority and has not considered the case
of the respective parties and the evidence
adduced by them in answering the
reference made to it.

7. In this view of the matter, in my
opinion, the labour court has miserably
failed to perform its statutory duty when it
has answered the reference in one
sentence
without
considering
the
respective case particularly when the
workman set up the case that he has been
victimised by the employer and further
that according to the terms and conditions
of the letter of appointment he could not
be
transferred
from
Ghaziabad
to
Ahemdabad, clearly demonstrates that
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
560
what the workman says, may be true.
Since at this stage it would not be proper
to express any opinion with regard to the
case set up by the workman, suffice to say
that for the reasons stated above, the
award of the labour court deserves to be
quashed and is hereby quashed.

8. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The award of the
labour Court dated 16.8.1996 is quashed.
The labour court is directed to answer the
reference
made
to
it
expeditiously
considering the long pendency of the
litigation between the parties and since
there is no interim order in this writ
petition, therefore employers are directed
to pay half of the wages that would have
been paid had his services been not
terminated on 12.2.1975 till the date of
this judgement, as it was admitted that the
employers have absolutely no material to
demonstrate that the workman was
gainfully employed during this period.
With the aforesaid direction the labour
court is directed to decide the matter
expeditiously
preferably
within
six
months from the date of presentation of
certified copy of this order before it.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.06.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42075 of 2002

Agra Engineering Industries Employees
Union

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.P. Agarwal
Sri S.S. Nigam
Sri Vijay Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.P. Gupta
Sri Tarun Agarwal
Sri H.N. Shukla
S.C.

Constitution of India Article 226-Practice
and Procedure- order passed under
Section
25(0)-Review
application
rejected-No reason disclosed-held- not
proper-order
rejecting
the
review
application quashed-recording reason- is
must to assess the validity of order or
even to challenge the validity before
higher authorities.

Held-Para 26

These reasons, however, cannot be the
only reason to be taken into account
while considering the application for
closure. There are other facts and
circumstances including bonafide of the
employers, or such compelling over
riding
circumstances
including
the
interest of general public, on which the
application
for
closure
may
be
considered.
The petitioners
in their
objection had not only assailed the
reasons given in the application namely
financial
difficulties,
but
it
also
challenged the correctness of balancesheet as documents prepared for the
purposes
of
closure
to
avoid
the
consequence in M.C. Mehta's case. The
State
Government
ought
to
have
addressed itself to these questions and
to consider whether the objections, had
substance. It has been held in Orissa
Textile and Steels Ltd. (supra) that the
interest of general public has known
concept. It is a guiding factor which
should
have
been
taken
into
consideration. The record does not show
that the State Government had taken
into account the interest of general
public as one of the factors, specially
when
order
was
to
deprive
238
employees
of
their
right
to
the
retrenchment
compensation
to
be
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in