# M/s SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi & Anr v. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 815
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-15
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 36732 of 2013
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-sdb-infrastructure-pvt-ltd-new-delhi-anr-v-presiding-officer-industrial-47515
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Labour law - Adjudication - Authorized
representative withdrew from the case -
Ex-parte
award
was
passed
without
intimation and notice to the employer -
Validity challenged - Held, the learned
816 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court below/Presiding Officer adopted a
procedure not known to law while passing
the impugned award dated 27.11.2012
which caused miscarriage of justice - High
Court set aside the award holding it in
violation of principles of natural justice.
(Para 15, 16 and 17)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

## Text

1 All. M/s SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi & Anr. Vs. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal & Anr. 815
consideration. The liberty therefore stands
reserved in favour of the petitioner to file
an application in prescribed form for
appointment of the guardian in respect of
Shri Sandeep Kumar Sharma before the
respondent authorities. It is also to be noted
that the respondent authorities on receipt of
the application is required to process the
application expeditiously, keeping in view
of the fact that a person with disability
including mental retardation cannot be
permitted under law to remain for a long
period without a guardian as the same may
be detrimental to the right and interest of
the person with disability.

31. In view of the aforesaid, it is
hereby directed that the petitioner shall
move an application in the prescribed
format for appointment of guardian of Sri
Sandeep Kumar Sharma along with all the
relevant documents before the District
Magistrate, Bijnor and on the receipt of the
aforesaid
application,
the
District
Magistrate, Bijnor shall place the same
before
the
Local
Level
Committee
constituted under the Act No.44 of 1999 for
consideration of the application of the
petitioner for issuance of certificate of
guardianship
of
Sri
Sandeep
Kumar
Sharma in favour of the petitioner. The
Local Level Committee shall accord
consideration on the aforesaid application
of
the
petitioner
and
after
giving
opportunity of hearing to all the concerned
and affected parties, decide the same in
accordance with law, within a period of
three months from the date of filing of the
application by the petitioner under the
order of this Court.

32. It is reminded to the District
Magistrate, Bijnor that a person who is
mentally retarded and who has lost his
parents cannot be permitted to remain
without a guardian for a long period of time
and considering the object of the Act, it is
imperative on the Local Level Committee
to accord such consideration in accordance
with law within the time prescribed.

33. It is, however, made clear that this
Court has not considered the merits of the
application for grant of guardianship in
favour of the petitioner and the Local Level
Committee/District
Magistrate
shall
consider the application of the petitioner in
accordance with law.

34. In view of the aforesaid, the writ
petition stands disposed off.
----------
(2022)01ILR A815
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C No. 36732 of 2013

M/s SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. New
Delhi & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Chandra Bhan Gupta, Om Prakash

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mani Shanker Sahu, Sri Ramgee
Prasad

A. Labour law - Adjudication - Authorized
representative withdrew from the case -
Ex-parte
award
was
passed
without
intimation and notice to the employer -
Validity challenged - Held, the learned
816 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court below/Presiding Officer adopted a
procedure not known to law while passing
the impugned award dated 27.11.2012
which caused miscarriage of justice - High
Court set aside the award holding it in
violation of principles of natural justice.
(Para 15, 16 and 17)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. The matter is taken up in the
revised call.

2. Heard Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta,
learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1State and Sri Virendra Kumar Gaur,
learned counsel holding brief of Sri
Ramgee Prasad, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2/1.

3. This is an application seeking
condonation of delay in filing substitution
application. The application accompanied
by a composite affidavit. Cause shown for
the
delay
in
filing
the
substitution
application as asserted in the composite
affidavit is sufficient.

4. Delay in filing the substitution
application is hereby condoned. The delay
condonation application is allowed.

(Re:
Civil
Misc.
Substitution
Application No.18 of 2021)

1. The matter is taken up in the
revised call.

2. Heard Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta,
learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1State and Sri Virendra Kumar Gaur,
learned counsel holding brief of Sri
Ramgee Prasad, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2/1.

3. This is an application for
substitution
and
is
supported
by
a
composite affidavit.

4. The substitution application has
been occasioned by the death of the
respondent No.2-Subedar Choudhary. The
composite affidavit filed in support of
application for substitution asserts that the
respondent No.2-Subedar Choudhary died
on 12.02.2021 during the pendency of the
writ petition.

5. The application for substitution has
been moved by the legal heirs/legal
representatives of the respondent No.2Subedar Choudhary (since deceased) to be
substituted in his place, as described in the
prayer
clause
of
the
substitution
application.

6. The substitution application is
allowed.

7.

Let
the
legal
heirs/legal
representatives of respondent No.2-Subedar
Choudhary (since deceased) as described in
the prayer clause of the substitution
application, be substituted in his place.
Words "died during the pendency of the
petition" shall be transcribed after the name
of the respondent No.2-Subedar Choudhary
(since deceased). Substitution be carried
out by learned counsel for the applicant
within a period of two weeks and shall be
confirmed by the Office.

8. The name of the legal heirs/legal
representatives of the respondent No.2Subedar Choudhary (since deceased) shall
be typed in Red Ink on separate page.
Similarly, the words "died during the
1 All. M/s SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi & Anr. Vs. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal & Anr. 817
pendency of the petition", after the name of
the respondent No.2-Subedar Choudhary
(since deceased), shall also be transcribed
in Red Ink on a separate page. Both the
papers, bearing the name of the legal
heirs/legal representatives of respondent
No.2-Subedar Choudhary (since deceased),
and the words "Died during the pendency
of the writ petition", shall be affixed to the
cause
title.
Office
to
confirm
the
substitution in the above said manner.

(Order on Writ Petition)

9. The matter is taken up in the
revised call.

10. Heard Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta,
learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1State and Sri Virendra Kumar Gaur,
learned counsel holding brief of Sri
Ramgee Prasad, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2/1.

11. The petitioners have assailed the
impugned award dated 27.11.2012 passed
by the respondent No.1/Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-III, U.P. Kanpur.

12. Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned
counsel for the petitioners further contends
that the authorized representative who was
prosecuting the case on behalf of the
petitioners withdrew from the proceedings
with leave of the Court on 29.08.2012,
without intimation to the petitioners. The
impugned award passed by the learned
court below/Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal-III, U.P. Kanpur was ex parte and
rendered in violation of principles of
natural justice. The respondent No.2workman had superannuated from service
after attaining the 58 years of age. His
services were not terminated. Terminal
benefits were disturbed to the respondentworkman.

13. Sri Virendra Kumar Gaur, learned
counsel holding brief of Sri Ramgee
Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2/1
contends
that
the
petitioneremployer was not liable to be noticed after
the
authorized
representative
had
withdrawn from the proceedings. He
defends the aforesaid impugned award. Sri
Virendra Kumar Gaur, learned counsel
holding brief of Sri Ramgee Prasad, learned
counsel for the respondent No.2/1 further
contends that the respondent No.2 died
during the pendency of the writ petition.
The
legal
heirs
of
the
respondent
No.2/workman-Subedar Chaudhary (since
deceased) are entitled to the benefits. He
found entitlements under the impugned
award dated 27.11.2012. It is contended by
Sri Virendra Kumar Gaur, learned counsel
holding brief of Sri Ramgee Prasad, learned
counsel for the respondent No.2/1 that the
services of the respondent No.2/workmanSubedar Chaudhary (since deceased) were
terminated without adopting the procedure
not known to law.

14. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

15. The authorized representative of
the petitioners withdrew from the case with
leave of the learned labour court. However,
the authorized representative did not
intimate the petitioner-employer about his
desire to withdraw from the case. The
learned court below did not ascertain
whether the petitioners have been intimated
about the decision of the authorized
representative to withdraw from the case.
Further, the order-sheet discloses that no
818 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
notices were issued to the petitioners after
the authorized representative withdrew
from the case. The petitioners were
unaware that the authorized representative
had withdrawn from the case. Since no
notices
were
issued,
they
went
unrepresented in the proceedings thereafter.
After
the
authorized
representative
withdrew from the case, the learned court
below proceeded ex parte to the petitioners
and passed the impugned award dated
27.11.2012. The pleadings in the writ
petition in this regard have also not been
traversed in the counter affidavit. The
impugned award dated 27.11.2012 is in
violation of principles of natural justice.

16. This Court finds that the learned
court below/Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal-III, U.P. Kanpur, adopted a
procedure not known to law while passing
the impugned award dated 27.11.2012
which caused miscarriage of justice.

17. The impugned award dated
27.11.2012 passed by the respondent No.1Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-III,
U.P. Kanpur, published on 12.03.2013 is
liable to be set aside and is set aside.

18. The Court initially minded was to
remand the matter for fresh consideration.
However, in view of long pendency and
admitted facts prolonging the litigation will
not be in the interests of justice.

19. At this stage, it would be
instructive to extract Section 4 (1) of the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which reads
as under:

"Section
4.
Payment
of
gratuity-(1) Gratuity shall be payable to an
employee on the termination of his
employment
after
he
has
rendered
continuous service for not less than five
years, -

(a) on his superannuation, or

(b)
on
his
retirement
or
resignation, or

(c) on his death or disablement
due to accident or disease.

Provided that the completion of
continuous service of five years shall not be
necessary where the termination of the
employment of any employee is due to
death or disablement."

20. A cumulative consideration of the
above materials establishes the fact of
superannuation of the workman in 2006,
upon attaining the age of 58 years. The
respondent No.2-workman in the witness
box also stated that on 30.11.2011, he had
attained 71 years of age. The respondent
No.2-workman in his testimony before the
learned court below stated that at the time
of termination of his services, he was paid
various
dues
like
gratuity,
bonus,
cumulative leave and his wages due till that
date. The benefits so disbursed to the
respondent No.2-workman are in the nature
of the terminal dues that was paid at the
time of superannuation. The respondent
No.2-workman has since expired. The
establishment in which the respondent
No.2-workman was engaged had closed
down in the year 2007.

21. The amount deposited by the
petitioner-employer shall be forthwith
disbursed in favour of the petitioneremployer forthwith.

22. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
1 All. Jitendra Singh Vs. Union Of India & Anr.
819
(2022)01ILR A819
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ C No. 53877 of 2017

Jitendra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manoj Kumar, Sri Suresh Kumar Maurya

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Surenra Prasad Sharma

A.
Examination
for
UGC/NET-2017
-
Wrong answer of a question in answerkey claimed - Re-evaluation sought -
Scope
of
interference
by
the
Court
considered - Held, when a decision is
taken by the Committee of Expert having
high academic qualifications and long
experience in the specialised field, the
Courts should not normally probe the
matters
unless
there
are
compelling
circumstances for doing so - The Court
should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the
answer-sheet of the candidate as it has no
expertise in the matter - The academic
matters are best left to the academics.
(Para 27 and 29)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. Maharashtra St. Board of Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education & Anr. Vs Paritosh
Bhupesh Kurmarsheth & Ors.; AIR 1984 SC
1543
2. Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs Chairman,
Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & ors;
J.T. 2004 SC 380
3. University of Mysore Vs C.D. Govinda Rao &
anr.; AIR 1965 SC 491
4. St. of Bihar & anr. Vs Dr. Asis Kumar
Mukherjee; AIR 1975 SC 192
5. M.S. Gupta etc. Vs A.K. Gupta & ors.; (1979)
2 SCC 339
6. Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs Karnataka
University & anr.; AIR 1986 SC 1448
7. Dr. Umakant Vs Dr. Bhikha Lal Jain & ors.;
AIR 1991 SC 2272
8. The Chancellor & anr. Vs Dr. Bijay Nanda Kar
& ors.; (1994) 1 SCC 169
9. St. of Orissa & ors. Vs Prajnaparamita
Samanta & ors.; (1996) 7 SCC 106
10. Chairman, J & K St. Board of Education Vs
Fayaz Ahmed; (2000) 3 SCC 59
11. The Dental Council of India Vs Subharti
K.K.B. Charitable Trust & anr.; AIR 2001 SC
2151
12. Ran Vijay Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
(2018) 2 SCC 357
13. Bihar Staff Selection Commission Vs Arun
Kumar; (2020) 6 SCC 362.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar Maurya,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Surendra Prasad Sharma, learned counsel
for respondent no.2 and Mr. Asheem
Mukherjee, learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner for following relief: