# M/s Laxmirattan Cotton Mills, Kanpur v. Labour Court(IV), Kanpur and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 235
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-02-08
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 98 of 2002
- **Bench:** S.K.Sen, C.J. R.K.Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-laxmirattan-cotton-mills-kanpur-v-labour-court-iv-kanpur-and-others-39804
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947 Section 12
C (i) (b) - Recounting not to be orderedunless it materially affect the result of
election.

Held - Para 6

In view of the foregoing discussions, the
judgement and order dated 21.1.2002
passed by the learned Single Judge is
hereby set aside and the order dated
26.12.2001 passed by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate is hereby quashed. The writ
petition as well as the Special Appeal are
allowed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.

## Text

1All] M/s Laxmirattan Cotton Mills, Kanpur V. Labour Court(IV), Kanpur and others
235
learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the Labour Court has not considered this
aspect of the matter that the workman
concerned has himself admitted in his
statement that he is drawing the pay-scale
of Rs. 2000-3500 and therefore he could
not have treated to be a workman. This, in
fact, is misleading statement of the
workman. The workman has said that he
is entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 20003500 when he will be assuming charge
though at present he is drawing pay-scale
of Rs. 500-900. No other point was
argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.

4. In view of the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and also for the reasons
aforestated in this judgement, this writ
petition deserves to be dismissed and is
hereby dismissed. There will be no order
as to costs. The interim order, if any,
stands, vacated.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 8.2.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K.SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE R.K.AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 98 of 2002

Anwar Ali

...Petitioner
Versus
Prescribed
Authority/Sub
Divisional
Officer, Chunar, District Mirzapur and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Avanish Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.P.Singh
Sri Ran Vijay Singh
S.C.

U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947 Section 12
C (i) (b) - Recounting not to be orderedunless it materially affect the result of
election.

Held - Para 6

In view of the foregoing discussions, the
judgement and order dated 21.1.2002
passed by the learned Single Judge is
hereby set aside and the order dated
26.12.2001 passed by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate is hereby quashed. The writ
petition as well as the Special Appeal are
allowed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Sen, C.J.)

1. We have heard Shri Avanish
Mishra learned counsel for the appellantwrit petitioner, Shri S.P.Singh learned
counsel for the respondent no. 5 and Shri
Ran
Vijay
Singh
learned
Standing
Counsel for the other respondents.

2. This Special Appeal is directed
against the judgment and order dated
21.01.2002 passed by the learned Single
Judge dismissing the writ petition. In the
writ petition, the writ petitioner- appellant
has challenged the order of the SubDivisional
Magistrate
directing
for
recounting of the votes.

3. It is the contention of the writ
petitioner that he has won by eight votes
whereas the dispute raised by the
respondent no.6-herein, is with regard to
two votes. The contention of Mrs. S.P.
Singh learned Counsel for the respondent
no. 5 is that there was inaccuracy in
mathematical calculation, which resulted
in apparent error to two votes, in as much
as, in all, 1166 number of votes were
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
236
shown to be polled whereas actually 1168
number of votes were polled.

4. We have considered this aspect of
the matter, Even assuming the contention
of Mr. S.P. Singh to be correct if the two
votes are taken into account the result of
the election will not materially be
affected. It is well settled proposition of
Election law that recounting, as a matter
of course, should not be directed.
Recounting can only be directed where
the alleged material irregularity affects
the result if recounting is done. From the
perusal of the irregularity, which has been
alleged in the petition, it can be seen that
the result of the election shall not
materially be affected. In fact, Section 12C (1) (b) of U.P. Panchyat Raj Act, 1947,
incorporated the relevant provision of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Section
12-C(1)
(b)
of
the
U.P.
Panchayat, Raj Act, 1947 is given below:

"12-C Application for question the
elections. (1) The election of a person as
Pradhan or as member of Gram Panchayat
including the election of a person
appointed as the Panch of the Nyaya
Panchayat under Section 43 shall not be
called
in
question
except
by
an
application presented to such authority
within such time and in such manner as
may be prescribed on the ground that-
(a) ...............
(b) That the result of the election has
been materially affected-
(i) by the improper acceptance or
rejection of any nomination; or
(ii) by gross failure to comply with the
provisions of this Act or the rules
framed thereunder.

The
aforesaid
provision
is
in
parimateria with the provision of Section
100(1)(d) of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 which is given below:
"100. Grounds for declaring election to be
void-(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) if the High Court is of opinion-
(a) ............
(b) ............
(c) ............
(d) that the result of the election, in so far
as it concerns a returned candidate
has been materially affected --
(i) by the improper acceptance of any
nomination, or
(ii) by any correct (corrupt) practice
committe in the interest of the
returned candidate by an agent other
than his election agent, or
(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or
rejection of any vote or the reception
of any vote which is void, or
(iv) by any non-compliance with the
provisions of the Constitution or of
this Act or of any rules or orders
made under this Act the High Court
shall declare the election of the
returned candidate to be void.

5. It is well settled on the basic of
several decisions of the Apex Court
unless the result of election is affected,
there is no scope for recounting. The same
view should also be made applicable in
the case, in hand, while interpreting the
provisions of Section 12-C (1)(b), and it is
apparently clear that even assuming that
two votes which has been alleged by the
respondent no. 5 should have been
included in the number of votes, and both
the votes have gone in favour of the
respondent no. 5, even then, the same
would not have materially affected the
result of the election since the writ
petitioner had won by eight votes. In that
view of the matter, we are of the view that
the
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate
has
1All] Anwar Ali V. Prescribed Authority/S.D.O., Chunar, Mirzapur and others
237
committed apparent error in directing for
the recounting of votes

6. In view of the foregoing
discussions, the judgement and order
dated 21.01.2002 passed by the learned
single Judge is hereby set aside and the
order dated 26.12.2001 passed by the Sub
Divisional Magistrate is hereby quashed.
The writ petition as well as the Special
Appeal are allowed. However, there shall
be no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.2.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M.KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No 27581 of 1999

Moti Lal Gupta

...Petitioner
Versus
Central
Administrative
Tribunal,
Allahabad Bench, Allahabad and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.S. Tripathi
Sri S.K. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
227-
Practice
and
Procedure
Scope
for
interference-
Judgement
passed
by
Tribunal under challenge- on ground out
of 10 points only three points have been
discussed- it shall be presumed that each
and every points have been discussed- if
so feel that any point not dealtwith- may
approach before the same Tribunal for
reconsideration.

Held - Para 4

If learned counsel for the petitioner
wants to urge that some other points
were pressed before the Court/Tribunal
but have not been dealt with, he should
approach the same court or tribunal and
if he can satisfy it that such points were
in fact pressed the Court Tribunal can
reconsider its order.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the
impugned
order
of
the
Central
Administrative Tribunal dated 15.4.1999
(Annexure-1 to the writ petition).

3. We have carefully perused the
impugned order and find no illegality in
the same. The Tribunal has observed that
there was break in the petitioner's service,
and since he did not complete ten years
service, therefore, he is not entitled for
pension.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
had urged that certain points were urged
before the tribunal, which have not been
considered by the Tribunal. It is well
settled that if certain points are not
mentioned in the judgement of the court
or tribunal, it will be deemed that they
were never pressed by the learned counsel
for the petitioner. The presumption in law
is that the Court or Tribunal deals with all
the points which are pressed. It often
happens that 10 points are taken in a
petition but only 3 points are pressed.
Naturally the Court/Tribunal will deal
with only these 3 points. If learned
counsel for the petitioner wants to urge
that some points were pressed before the
Court/Tribunal but have not been dealt
with then he should approach the same