# M/s Laxmi Palace (Cinema), Varanasi v. P.O., Labour Court Varanasi and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 1 ILRA 259
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-02-24
- **Bench:** S.N. Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-laxmi-palace-cinema-varanasi-v-p-o-labour-court-varanasi-and-others-40437
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

U.P. Industrial Dispute Rules 1957-Rule
16 (1)-Exparte award-despite of service
of Notices the employer failed to appearLabor Court invested with the Power to
procee exparte-but the approach should
be one simulating the judicial standeraward being bereft of any discussion on
merit-Non
application
of
mind-heldconspicuously discernible in the order
can not sustained.

Held: Para 10
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
[2005
 260
It is therefore explicit from the award
that the award was rendered without
application of mind and it cannot be
given the complexion of an award on
merit. The award being bereft of any
discussion on merit even of claims of the
workman thus, non-application of mind
is conspicuously discernible in the order.
Case law discussed:
2002 (3) SCC-25
2001 LLJ
2001 (89) FLR 229
AIR 1970 SC-806

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] M/s Laxmi Palace (Cinema), Varanasi, V. P.O., Labour Court Varanasi and others
259
 brought on record by the petitioner
including the admit card, fee receipt,
identity card and the certificate issued by
the Principal, it is established beyond
doubt that the petitioner has not been
declared to be a regular student of the said
college.
As
already
noticed
above,
petitioner has been granted admission in a
single subject (B.Sc. Part-III), as such in
view of the provisions of the rules
regulating the elections, he not being a
regular student is not entitled to contest
the election. The identity card issued to
petitioner is for the purpose to enable him
to undertake the practical classes in the
subject (B.Sc.-III). Therefore, no benefit
can be withdrawn by the petitioner on the
basis of the identity card. Similarly, the
depositing of student union membership
fee cannot confer a right upon the
petitioner to contest the election. It is
needless to point out that right to contest
election is statutory right (Reference-
2000 (10) SCC 648; University of Delhi
and another Vs. Anand Vardhan Chandal)
and the right to contest election and to
participate in the election is regulated
under the provisions so made.

5. In such circumstances, since the
petitioner does not answer the description
of regular student of Bareilly College,
Bareilly, the question of his being
permitted to contest the election does not
arise. The plea of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, raised on behalf of
the petitioner, is totally out of context.

6. As in paragraph 6 of the writ
petition it has been stated that the said
rule 10(b) on the basis whereof the
petitioner has been held not to be a
regular
student
has
already
been
challenged by the petitioner in writ
petition no. 41948 of 2004, in which no
interim order is granted to the petitioner.
In such circumstances, if said writ petition
is dismissed, no grievance can be
survived.

With these observations, writ petition
stands dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28460 Of
1997

M/S
Laxmi
Palace
(Cinema)
Mahmoorganj Varanasi

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding officer Labour Court Varanasi
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri T.P. Singh
Sri S.S. Nigam
Sri Siddharth Singh
Sri Anupam Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri P.C. Jhingan
Sarita Jhingan
S.C.

U.P. Industrial Dispute Rules 1957-Rule
16 (1)-Exparte award-despite of service
of Notices the employer failed to appearLabor Court invested with the Power to
procee exparte-but the approach should
be one simulating the judicial standeraward being bereft of any discussion on
merit-Non
application
of
mind-heldconspicuously discernible in the order
can not sustained.

Held: Para 10
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
[2005
 260
It is therefore explicit from the award
that the award was rendered without
application of mind and it cannot be
given the complexion of an award on
merit. The award being bereft of any
discussion on merit even of claims of the
workman thus, non-application of mind
is conspicuously discernible in the order.
Case law discussed:
2002 (3) SCC-25
2001 LLJ
2001 (89) FLR 229
AIR 1970 SC-806

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.)

1. Subject matter of impugnment in
the instant petition is the Award dated
3.6.1995 rendered by the Labour Court
Varanasi pursuant to Reference No. 105
of 1992 made under section 4 K of the
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in
which Industrial Dispute referred was
"Whether the employers have wrongfully
terminated the services of Employee Sri
Lalji Pandey son of Sri Dev Nath Pandey,
Booking Clerk with effect from 8.12.1990
and if so, what relief/compensation he is
entitled to get?"

2. It would appear from the record
that
the
petitioner-employer
entered
appearance through his representative on
7.7.1992 on which date time was sought
to file written statement on behalf of the
petitioner employer. On 21.10.1994, time
was again granted to the representative of
the petitioner fixing 15.12.1994 and again
upto 3.2.1995. Again, time was granted
on 2.3.1995 fixing 28.4.1995. It would
further appear that in the meantime
representative of the petitioner reclused
himself and as a consequence notice was
issued to the petitioner employer on
1.5.1995, which it is alleged was served to
the petitioner on 10.5.1995. In this
conspectus, the Labour Court proceeded
exparte and rendered the award dated
3.6.1995.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
assailed the impugned award stating that
it is unsustainable on grounds that there is
no decision or adjudication even of claims
of the workman in the award on merit
inasmuch as there is no discussion at all
of the materials on record. He further
canvassed that even if the Labour Court
was inclined to proceed exparte, it was
under a duty to analytically examine the
materials on record and record reasons for
his conclusions. The learned counsel
further argued that the award is telescoped
into very few paragraphs and contains no
discussion on merit and hence, it being
not in conformity with the provisions of
the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
Rules made there-under, renders itself
liable to be quashed. Per contra, Smt.
Sarita Jhingan strove hard to prop up the
award urging that the Labour Court had
repeatedly afforded opportunity from
1992 onwards and being satisfied that the
petitioner was evading appearance, was
constrained to proceed exparte. She also
tried to convince that it was not necessary
for the Labour Court to delve into details
and ultimately contended that the award
was rightly passed.

4. The short and substantial question
that crops up for consideration is whether
it was incumbent upon the Labour Court
to decide the question on merit on the
basis
of
materials
on
record
notwithstanding the fact that the employer
had not filed any written statement within
the time fixed and there was order of the
Labour Court to proceed exparte.

5. In connection with the aforestated
question, Rule 16 of the U.P. Industrial
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] M/s Laxmi Palace (Cinema), Varanasi, V. P.O., Labour Court Varanasi and others
261
Disputes Rules, 1957 may be referred to.
Clause (1) of Rule 16 clearly envisages
that if on the date fixed or on any other
date
to
which
the
hearing
maybe
adjourned, any party to the proceedings
before the Labour Court or Tribunal or an
Arbitrator is absent, though duly served
with summons or having the notice of
date of hearing, the Labour Court or
Tribunal or the Arbitrator, as the case may
be, may proceed with the case in his
absence and pass such order as it may
deem fit and property. Rule 10 (9) of the
Rules framed under Central Industrial
Disputes, bears close similarity with the
provisions of Rule 16 of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 and
mandates on similar lines. There is no
gain-saying that the Labour Court is
invested with power to proceed exparte in
the circumstances embodied therein but
the question remains whether the award
which is not supported with reasons or
discussion could have the complexion of
an award on merit. In connection with this
question, I would first delve into the cases
cited across the bar.

6. The first case cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is Range Forest
Officer v. S.T.Hadimani2. In this case,
the Apex Court held that the onus was on
claimant to prove by leading evidence that
he had in fact worked for 240 days in the
year preceding his termination and filing
of an affidavit is only his own statement
in his favour and that cannot be regarded
as sufficient evidence for any court or
tribunal to come to the conclusion that a
workman had in fact worked for 240 days
in a year. The next case relied upon is C
& M.D. Tamin Ltd v. P.O., Indl.

2 (2002) 3 SCC 25
Tribunal3. In the case the crux of what
has been held is that the adjudicatory
forum should take into consideration the
statements filed by the party, which
remained exparte, and only on the
comparative merits of the claims and
counter claims an exparte award has to be
passed. It was further observed that it is
clear that the exparte award passed
without considering the contentions raised
in the counter statement filed before the
conciliation Officer or before the Labour
Court or Industrial Tribunal would not be
valid.

7. In Anil Sood v. Presiding
officer, Labour Court II4, the Apex
Court held that the power to proceed
exparte is available under Rule 22 of the
Central Rules which also includes the
power to inquire whether or not there was
sufficie3nt cause for the absence of a
party at the hearing and if there is
sufficient cause shown which prevented a
party from appearing, then if the party is
visited with an award without a notice
which his a nullity and therefore, the
Tribunal will have no jurisdiction to
proceed
and
consequently,
it
must
necessarily have power to set aside the
exparte award.
8. The last decision is Agra Electric
Supply Company v. Labour Court,
Meerut5 the quintessence of what has
been held by the Apex Court is that the
provisions
clearly
indicate
that
the
Tribunal or Labour Court should take up
the case and decide it on merits and not
dismiss it for default.

3 2001-1-LLJ
4 2001 *89) FLR 229
5 AIR 1970 SC 806
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
[2005
 262

9. It has been postulated both by the
Apex Court and various High Courts in a
catena of decisions that failure to give
reasons amounts to denial of justice. In
Rural Regional Bank and another v.
Munna Lal Jain (2005) AIR SCW 95,
the Apex Court elaborated that reasons
are live links between the mind of the
decisions taker to the controversy and the
decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons
substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The
emphasis on recording reasons is that if
the decision reveals the inscrutable face of
the sphinx, it can, by its silence, render it
virtually impossible for the courts to
perform
their
appellate
function
or
exercise the power of judicial review in
adjudging the validity of the decision.
Right to reason is an indispensable part of
a sound judicial system. Another rationale
is that the affected party can know why
the decision has gone against him. One of
the salutary requirements of natural
justice is spelling out reasons for the order
made, in other words, a speaking out. The
inscrutable face of a sphinx is ordinarily
incongruous with a judicial or quasijudicial performance.

10. Reverting to the case in hand, it
is luculent from a bare perusal that the
award consists of four paragraphs. The
first paragraph contains details of parties
and dispute referred to it. The second and
third paragraphs deal with the dates fixed
in the case in labour court. The fourth and
last paragraph contains conclusion. The
decisions discussed above, do point to the
requirements of taking into consideration
the statements filed by the party and it is
only on comparative merits of claims and
counter claims that an exparte award has
to be passed and any exparte award filed
without discussing the claim and counter
claims of the parties would not be valid.
In the instant case, the Labour Court
merely laid out factual aspects and
jumped to the conclusion that the
workman was illegally terminated and
was liable to be reinstated in service. The
requirement of law envisaged for quasi
judicial authority such as tribunal is that
the approach should be one simulating the
judicial standard and it must receive and
place on record all the necessary, relevant,
cogent and acceptable material facts
germane and relevant to the facts in issue
and inference to form conclusion has to
be drawn in conformity with the judicial
norms. In substance, the approach of the
Labour Court should be judicious. It
transpires from a perusal of the award that
the Labour Court has not discussed the
materials on record nor it tried to discuss
the question for inference how the
termination order was illegal on the basis
of materials on record. The least that was
expected of labour court was to discuss
the claims of the workman simulating the
judicial
standard
in
case
it
was
constrained to proceed exparte in the facts
and circumstances of the case i.e. to have
analytically examined the merit of the
claims and recorded his satisfaction with
reference to the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act. It is well
enunciated by catena of decisions that the
decision on merit must have its genesis on
material facts on record and the authority
is not permitted to traverse beyond the
facts on record to draw inference and
make out a case of subjective satisfaction
for his conclusions. What operated in the
mind of the authority remained entombed
and there is no discussion to articulate the
view that the workman was illegally fired
away and was entitled to reinstatement. It
is therefore explicit from the award that
the
award
was
rendered
without
application of mind and it cannot be given
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All]
Bahadur Singh V. State of U.P. and others
263
 the complexion of an award on merit.
The award being bereft of any discussion
on merit even of claims of the workman
thus,
non-application
of
mind
is
conspicuously discernible in the order.

11. As a result of foregoing
discussion, the award under challenge
cannot be sustained in law. The writ
petition succeeds and is allowed and in
consequence, the award dated 3.6.95 is
quashed. In view of above discussion, the
matter is relegated to the Labour court for
decision afresh after affording opportunity
to the petitioner-employer for filing
written statement within a period of one
month which period would commence to
run from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order. It is expected
that the Labour Court shall complete
evidence within two months thereafter
and pass appropriate orders expeditiously
in accordance with law.
Petition allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.022005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2028 of
2005

Bahadur Singh

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Tufail Hasan

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 156
(3)- Application u/s 156 (3)-from bare
perusal of the allegations-prima facie
offence made out-except directing the
S.O. to register and investigate- the
application can not be treated as a
complaint-held
magistrate
is
under
obligation
to
direct
the
S.O.

to
registered and investigate the case. .

Held- Para 5

In
such
circumstances
the
learned
Magistrate was under obligation to direct
the S.O. of police station concerned to
register the case and investigate the
same. If on the basis of the allegation
made in the application under Section
156 (3) Cr. P. C. prima facie cognizable
offence is made out such application
cannot
be
treated
as
a
complaint
because in such cases the learned
Magistrate is under obligation to direct
the S.O. of police station concerned to
register the case and investigate the
same.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Tufail Hasan learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.G.A.

2. This petition is filed against the
order dated 28.8.2004 passed by the
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Firozabad whereby the application under
Section 156(3) Cr. P. C. filed by the
petitioner was treated as complaint and
the police station concerned was not
directed
to
register
the
case
and
investigate the same in exercise of the
powers conferred under Section 156(3)
Cr. P. C. and the order dated 27.11.2004
passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Firozabad,
whereby the revision filed by the
petitioner was dismissed.