# M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 1 ILRA 113
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-11-29
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7345 of 2001
- **Bench:** Rajes Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-hindustan-aeronautics-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41241
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947-Section
4 K-Company engaged to manufacture
of
sophisticated
Aircraft
and
other
defence
equipments-Labour
court
a
creation of U.P. Act has no jurisdiction to
try the dispute of except the Central
Government-held-invalid-award
given
by labour Court quashed.

Held: Para 10

In my opinion, present writ petition can
be allowed only on the ground that the
reference made by the state Government
under section 4-K of the Act was invalid.
The controversy involved in the present
case is squarely covered by the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of the
petitioner itself in Civil Appeal NO.5655
of 2006, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs.
Hindustan Aeronautics Employee's Union
and another.
Case law discussed:
CA 5655 of 06 decided on 4.12.06, 1961 (2)
FLR-583, 2002 (2) SCC465, 2005(5) SCC 91,
2002 (92) FLR 601, 2005 (7) SCC 764, 1987
(2) SCC 543, 1995 (Supp), 24-SCC-548, 1995
(Supp)(4) 549 Pra288, 2006 (108) FLR 201
AIR 1970 SC.82, AIR 1997 SC 645, 2001 FLR
(91) 182, AIR 1977 SC392, 2001 (90) FLR 745,
2004 (103) FLR 102, AIR 1981 SC 1473, AIR
1987 SC. 2111,AIR 1988 SC 1473, 2003(4)
SCC - 712, 1985 LIC 1683

## Text

1 All] M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd V. State of U.P. and others
113
this court, in case the applicant is release
on bail, he shall tamper with evidence.

6.

Considering
the
facts,
circumstance of the case, submissions
made by learned counsel for the applicant,
learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for
the complainant, and without expressing
any opinion on the merit of the case the
applicant is not entitled for ball, because
the role of causing injuries to the
deceased is assigned to the applicant also.
The FIR was promptly lodged. The
prosecution story is fully corroborated by
the post mortem examination report,
therefore, the applicant does not deserve
for bail, the prayer for bail is refused.

7. Accordingly this application is
rejected.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7345 of 2001

M/s
Hindustan
Aeronautics
Limited,
Kanpur

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.D. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Shayam Narain
Sri Rajesh Kumar
Sri S.N. Dubey
S.C.

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947-Section
4 K-Company engaged to manufacture
of
sophisticated
Aircraft
and
other
defence
equipments-Labour
court
a
creation of U.P. Act has no jurisdiction to
try the dispute of except the Central
Government-held-invalid-award
given
by labour Court quashed.

Held: Para 10

In my opinion, present writ petition can
be allowed only on the ground that the
reference made by the state Government
under section 4-K of the Act was invalid.
The controversy involved in the present
case is squarely covered by the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of the
petitioner itself in Civil Appeal NO.5655
of 2006, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs.
Hindustan Aeronautics Employee's Union
and another.
Case law discussed:
CA 5655 of 06 decided on 4.12.06, 1961 (2)
FLR-583, 2002 (2) SCC465, 2005(5) SCC 91,
2002 (92) FLR 601, 2005 (7) SCC 764, 1987
(2) SCC 543, 1995 (Supp), 24-SCC-548, 1995
(Supp)(4) 549 Pra288, 2006 (108) FLR 201
AIR 1970 SC.82, AIR 1997 SC 645, 2001 FLR
(91) 182, AIR 1977 SC392, 2001 (90) FLR 745,
2004 (103) FLR 102, AIR 1981 SC 1473, AIR
1987 SC. 2111,AIR 1988 SC 1473, 2003(4)
SCC - 712, 1985 LIC 1683

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar. J.)

1. By means of present petition, the
petitioner is challenging the award dated
10.10.2000 given by the Prescribed
Authority Labour Court (III), U.P.,
Kanpur in Industrial Disputes Case No.1
of 1991 on the reference being made by
the State Government under Section 4 K
of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act).

2. The petitioner is a Company
incorporated under the Indian Companies
Act, 1956 having its registered office at
15/1, Cubbon Road, Bangalore. It is
claimed to be Government of India
undertaking. The petitioner is engaged in
114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
the manufacture of sophisticated Aircraft
and other defence equipments and caters
to the Ministry of Defence in India. The
petitioner has several units all over India.
The dispute relates to the unit at Chakeri,
Kanpur. The Company claimed to have
been incorporated in the year 1964. The
respondent no. 3 claimed to have been
appointed as a Fitter in the petitioner's
Company in the year 1964. He worked till
1967. Since then, he remained absent and
did not report for work at all. In the year
1988, the respondent no. 3 raised his
claim before the Conciliation Officer and
claimed that his services had been
wrongly terminated with effect from
9.10.1967. The respondent no. 3 also
moved an application for the condonation
of delay on 29.9.1988 and filed objection
in C.B. Case No.1124 of 1988. The
petitioner
received
a
notice
dated
22.10.1988
and
the
petitioner
also
received an order/letter dated 30.4.1990
written
by
Joint
Secretary,
Labour
Department, U.P. Government, Kanpur to
Shri P.N. Tripathi, respondent no. 3 by
which it was informed that the State
Government has not considered the case
proper for adjudication and the same has
been consigned to record on the ground
that the dispute has been raised delayed.
However, vide letter dated 7.1.1991 it has
been informed that Government has
referred the dispute under Section 4 K of
the Act to the Labour Court on the issue
"Kya
Sewayojakon
dwara
apne
karmachari Prem Narain Tripathi putra
Shri Ram Nath Tripathi Pad- Assembly
Fitter ko dinank 9.10.67 se karya se
prathak/banchit kiya jana anuchit evam
avadihanik hai? Yadi ha, to sambandhit
karmachari kya hitlabh/upsham pane ka
adhikari hai tatha kis anya vivran sahit."

3. The petitioner challenged the
aforesaid reference by means of Writ
Petition No. 11821 of 1991 on the ground
that it was made after 21 years. This
Court passed an interim order staying the
order of reference. However, the writ
petition was finally decided vide order
dated 18.5.99. This Court observed as
follows:-

"The main ground of challenge in the
present petition is that the dispute has
been raised by respondent no. 3 after 21
years and, therefore, the reference should
not be made by the State Government. It
is now well settled that there is no
limitation prescribed under the Industrial
Dispute Act for referring the matter for
adjudication. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Ajab Singh Vs. Sirhind
Co-operative
Marketing-cumProcessing Service Society Limited and
another reported in JT 1999 (3) SC, 38
had held that the provisions of the
limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable in
respect of proceeding arising under the
Industrial Disputes Act. It is for the
Labour Court to mould the relief
according to the facts of the case. It shall
be open to the petitioner to raise whatever
objection it wants to raise before the
Labour Court."

4. Thereafter the petitioner received
the notice in Adjudication Case No.1 of
1991. On behalf of petitioner, Sri S.C.
Saxena, Advocate appeared. Respondent
no. 3 had filed his written statement on
5.3.1991. The petitioner filed its written
statement on 2.8.2000. The petitioner
raised various objections claimed to be as
follows:

(a) The petitioner's Company belongs to
the Central Government Public Sector and
1 All] M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd V. State of U.P. and others
115
was fully controlled and managed by the
Central Government and, therefore, the
State Government could not refer the
matter under Section 4 K of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act in view of the
provisions of Section 2 (I) (i) and (ii) of
the Act and it is the Central Government
who can refer the matter.
(b) By the notification dated 3.7.1998
the Central Government had transferred
power to the State Government to make
reference under the Industrial Disputes
Act. Such power would be exercised by
the State Government only after 3.7.1998
and, therefore, the reference made by the
State Government in 1991 was without
jurisdiction.
(c) The Constitution of the Labour Court
was under the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act and not under the Industrial Disputes
Act (Central) and, therefore, it had no
jurisdiction to try the case of the
petitioner for which the appropriate
Government was the Central Government.
(d) The reference made after 21 years
was highly belated. The appointment of
the Presiding Officer hearing the matter
was not valid as he did not fulfil the
condition under Articles 234 and 236 of
the Constitution of India and also the
provisions of Section 4 K of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act.

5. A rejoinder statement was also
filed by the petitioner on 13.8.2000. the
respondent no. 3 moved an application on
2.8.2000 by which he objected the
appearance of Sri S.C. Saxena, Advocate
who was authorised representative of the
Company and appearing since the year
1991. The petitioner filed the objection.
However, vide order dated 14.8.2000 the
Labour Court debarred the appearance of
Sri S.C. Saxena, Advocate saying that he
was a legal practitioner and could not
appear in view of Section 6-1 of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner
challenged the aforesaid order by way of
Writ Petition No. 42503 of 2000. The said
writ petition claimed to be pending. After
14.8.2000, the petitioner's Company was
prevented from representing its case
through its authorised representative Sri
S.C. Saxena, Advocate. After 14.8.2000,
the date was fixed on 28.2.2000 for filing
the documents and thereafter the date was
fixed for 13.9.2000. On 13.9.2000, the
petitioner filed an application seeking
time to seek its remedy. However, the
petitioner
filed
the
documents
in
compliance of the order of the Court. He
submitted that on that day it was not
possible to cross-examine the workman's
evidence and to produce its own evidence.
Further on 13.9.2000 the Company filed
two documents, namely certified standing
orders of the Company and photocopy of
the administrative instructions on the
subject-maintenance
of
records.
The
petitioner's application for seeking time
was rejected by the Court on 13.9.2000
and the award was given.

6. Heard Sri S. D. Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shayam
Narain, Assisted by Sri Rajesh Kumar,
learned counsel for the respondent no.3
and learned Standing Counsel appearing
on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 and 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted as follows:-

1.
The reference drawn by the State
Government
under
the
U.
P.
Industrial Disputes Act is invalid. He
placed reliance on the judgement of
this Court dated 29.9.1997 in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 13936 of
1995, HAL Vs. State of U.P. and
116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
others A 12/99 at 113 and the
decision of the Apex Court in C.A.
5655 of 2006 HAL Vs. HAL
Employees Union and others dated
4.12.2006.
2.
The dispute was raised after 21 years
was highly belated. The delay was
notproperly explained; no proof of
illness claimed by respondent no. 3
exists on record. The respondent no.
3 did not disclose the date when he
regained health.

Reliance is placed on the following
decisions:-

1. Inder Singh & Sons Ltd. Vs. Their
Workmen (1961) 2 FLR583.
2. Chairman, Railway Board and
others Vs. Chandrima Das (Mrs)
and others (2002) 2 SCC-465.
3. Haryana
State
Coop.
Land
Development Bank Vs. Neelam
(2005) 5 SCC-91.
4. Assistant Executive Engineer Vs.
Sri Shivalinga [2002 (92) FLR
601].

3. Award has been given ex-parte.
The petitioner authorized representative
was appearing since beginning Le.
28.2.1991. He was debarred on 14.8.2000.
The petitioner's adjournment application
for genuine grounds was rejected. The
petitioner was totally denied opportunity
to cross-examine respondent no. 3. The
award was passed after two days before
the date fixed in the writ petition
challenging the order dated 14.8.2000.

4. The respondent no. 3 abandoned
his service. He did not prove any
justifiable reason for abandonment. His
termination is valid.

Reliance is placed on the following
decision:-
(i) Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General
Manager, reported in (2005) 7 SCC
764.

5-
The award is wholly perverse.
Admittedly, the petitioner's establishment
came into existence in 1964. However,
the Labour Court has held that the
respondent no.3 was employed in 1962.
There is no documentary evidence in
support of the case of the respondent no.
3.

6- At any rate respondent no. 3 was not
entitled to be reinstated with or without
continuity either in 2000 or now, he
having not worked for HAL since 1967.
Reliance is placed on the following
decisions:-
1.- Ras
Behari
Vs.
Haryana
Agricultural University through
Vice-Chancellor, Hissar and others
reported in (1987) 2 SCC 543.
2.
Gujarat State Road Transport
Corpn. and another Vs. Mulu
Amra, reported in (1995) Supp. (4)
SCC 548.
3.
Rolston
John
Vs.
Central
Government
Industrial
TribunalCum- Labour Court and
others, reported in (1995) Supp (4)
SCC- 549 (Para 2 & 8).

7- At any rate respondent is not entitled
for back wages.

Reliance is placed on the following
decision:-
(i)- U.P. State Brassware Corporation
Ltd. and another Vs. Udainarain
Pandey, reported in [2006 (108)
FLR 201].
1 All] M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd V. State of U.P. and others
117
7. Learned counsel for the opposite
party relied upon the decisions of the
Labour Court and further placed reliance
on the following decisions:

1- Heavy
Engineering
Mazdoor
Union Vs. State of Bihar and others,
reported in A.I.R. 1970 SC, 82 (Paras4,5 & 6).
2- Air India Statutory Corporation
etc. Vs. United Labour Union and
others, reported in A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 645
(Para-28)
3-
 Steel Authority of India Ltd. and
others Vs. National Union Water Front
Workers and others, reported in [2001
(91) F.L.R. 182] (Para-43)
4-
 V.B. Patil and others Vs. Y.L.
Patil, reported in A.I.R. 1977 SC.,392
5-
 Sapan Kumar Pandit Vs. U.P.
State Electricity Board and others,
reported in 2001 (90) F.L.R.754
6- M/s Nicks (India) Tools Vs. Ram
Surat and aother, reported in [2004
(103) F.L.R.-102] (Para-11)
7-
 Gokaraju Rangaraju Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh, reported in A.I.R.
1981 SC, 1473 (Para-15)
8-
 M/s. Beopar Sahayak (P) Ltd. and
others Vs. Vishwa Nath and others,
reported A.I.R. 1987 SC-2111
9- State of Maharashtra Vs. Labour
Law Practitioners' Association and
others, reported in A.I.R. 1998 SC-1233
10- High
Court
of
Gujarat
and
another Vs. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor
Panchayat and others, reported in
(2003) 4 SCC-712 (Para-17)
11- M/s Poysha Industrial Company
Ltd., Ghaziabad Vs. State of U.P. and
others, reported in 1985 L.I.C.-1683.

8. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, I have perused the impugned
order.
9. The petitioner company belong to
Central Government Public Sector and
was fully controlled and managed by the
Central Government engaged in the
manufacture of sophisticated aircraft and
other defence equipments and caters to
the Ministry of Defence in India.

10. In my opinion, present writ
petition can be allowed only on the
ground that the reference made by the
state Government under section 4-K of
the Act was invalid. The controversy
involved in the present case is squarely
covered by the decision of the Apex Court
in the case of the petitioner itself in Civil
Appeal NO.5655 of 2006, Hindustan
Aeronautics
Ltd.
Vs.
Hindustan
Aeronautics
Employee's
Union
and
another. The decision of the Apex Court ,
read as follows:

"Leave granted.
The
principal
question
which
arises for consideration is as to whether
the State of Uttar Pradesh was the
appropriate Government for making a
reference of the industrial dispute
raised by the respondent-Union. The
question is no longer res-integra in view
of the Constitution Bench decision of
this Court in Steel Authority of India
Ltd. And Ors. Vs. National Union
Waterfront Workers and Ors. 2001 7
SCC 1 as also a three-Judge Bench
decision of this Court in appellant's
own case versus Hindustan Aero
Canteen K. Sangh and ors. -Civil
Appeal No.3659/2002.
In view of the aforementioned
pronouncements of this Courts we are
of the opinion that the High Court was
not correct in refusing to interfere with
the award of the Industrial Tribunal.
We, therefore, set aside the impugned
118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
award as also the judgment of the High
Court leaving the merit of the matter
open.
All
the
remedies
of
the
respondent indisputably shall remain
open.
The appeal is allowed.".

11. Learned Single Judge of this
Court in Writ Petition No.13936 of 1995,
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. State of
U.P. And others in its order dated
29.09.1997 held as follows:

"In
my
view,
therefore,
the
petitioner's contention that in the case
of
the
petitioner
the
appropriate
Government
was
the
Central
Government
is
correct
and
the
Government of Uttar Pradesh had no
jurisdiction to refer the dispute for
adjudication
by
the
Industrial
Tribunal."

12. In view of the above, writ
petition is allowed. The impugned award
dated 10.10.2000 given by the Prescribed
Authority Labour Court (III) U.P., Kanpur
in Industrial Disputes Case No.1 of 1991
is quashed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.01.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ petition No.63906 of 2007

Ashok Kumar Jain

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri Rama Kant Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava
Sri Vikash Sahai
Sri Vinod Sinha
S.C.

Constitution of India Art. 226-Service
Law-substantive vacancy of Principal
caused on 20.6.98-senior most Lecturer
appointed officiating-but subsequently
suspended-petitioner in June 1999 given
charge of officiating principal-resigned
on 28.10.05 on the ground of ill healthanother
lecturer
given
charge
as
officiating
principal
who
retired
on
30.6.07-again the petitioner took charge
as
officiating
Principal
but
D.I.O.S.
directed the management to appoint
another lecturer as officiating Principalheld-once
Adhoc
arrangement
made
officiating
Principal-the
substantive
vacancy remained same only Adhoc
arrangement came to an end-petitioner
can not be appointed.

Held: Para 7

The substantive vacancy occurred on
30.6.1998 on the retirement of Ramesh
Chandra Gupta and no fresh vacancy
occurred upon the retirement of Girish
Chandra Jain on 30.6.1997. It was the
same
vacancy
which
continued.
Consequently,
the
vacancy
which
occurred on 30.6.1998 continued and
continued to exist till 30.6.2007. The
same post continued to remain vacant
and no substantive appointment on the
said vacancy was made. The mere fact
that an adhoc arrangement of officiating
Principal was made earlier on the said
post which came to an end would not
mean that a fresh substantive vacancy
had again been created. The substantive
vacancy remained the same and only an
officiating arrangement had come to an
end. This view was also held in the