# Maya Press Pt. Ltd. and others v. The Dy. Labour Commissioner, Allahabad & others

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 175
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-02-11
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2482 of 2001
- **Bench:** Sunil Ambwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/maya-press-pt-ltd-and-others-v-the-dy-labour-commissioner-allahabad-others-39942
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri K.P. Agarwal
Miss Bushra Maryam
Sri Ashwani Mishra
S.C.

U.P.
Industrial
Disputes
Act,
1947-
provisions of section 6 (W) which are
pari materia to section 25 (O) of the
Central Industrial Disputes Act, are not
violative
of
fundamental
rights
guaranteed under constitution of India,
and
thus
the
employer
can
close
industrial establishment without seeking
the permission of the State Government.

Held ( Para 9)

In the facts and circumstances, both the
aforesaid writ petitions are dismissed
with the observation that their parties
shall be permitted to take all possible
objection before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner, who shall decide the
matter as expeditiously as possible.
Case law referred:
1992 (65) FLR 961
JT 2002 (1) SC 160
2000 (1) UPLBEC 651

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Maya Press Pt. Ltd. and others V. The Dy. Labour Commissioner, Allahabad & others 175
Smt.
Kanti
Srivastava
for
her
compassionate appointment in the Bank
may please be declined. We shall advise
the Deputy General Manager, State Bank
of India, Zonal Office, Lucknow to advise
Smt. Srivastava suitably and treat the
matter as closed."

7. From a perusal of the above
recommendation on which is affixed the
faconic word 'approved' by way of order
by the competent authority, it appears to
me that the authorities have skimmed the
surface of ratio flowing from various
decisions and has not grasped the pivotal
underlying object of the scheme of
compassionate
appointment.
The
authorities concerned have not assigned
any
reason
for
accepting
recommendation, the necessary corollary
whereof is that the competent authority
has
not applied its mind
on the
recommendation
whether
the
details
furnished by the recommending authority
were
valid
to
warrant
denial
of
appointment of compassionate ground and
whether the authority concerned was
perspicacious
enough
to
assess
the
consequence of denial of appointment to
the bereaved family in the long run. The
object of speaking order and observance
of principles of natural justice is to
prevent miscarriage of justice and secure
fair play in action. In the present case, the
competent authority merely contented
itself by affixing laconic word 'approved'
on the recommendations and has not
assigned
any
reason
and
in
the
circumstances, the denial of appointment
by the competent authority by way of
laconic word 'approved' does not have the
complexion of a valid order passed after
considering all the ramification of the
matter with due regard to the underlying
object of the compassionate appointment.
The impugned order does not give reason
nor is there any application of mind into
the relevant factors or any discussion on
most material and vital points. The
authorities have not bestowed laborious
thoughts upon the factors that the
deceased was survived by three minor
daughters and they have not also given
thought to the fact whether the family, in
the circumstances, would require any
permanent source of income of sustain
itself after having lost its sole bread
earner to keep the pot of the family
boiling.

8. In the above perspective, the
impugned order cannot be sustained and
is liable to be quashed. In the result, the
petition succeeds and is allowed and the
impugned order declining compassionate
appointment
to
the
petitioner
is
accordingly quashed attended with the
direction
to
the
respondent
Bank
authorities to reconsider the claim of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment
in the light of true intendment of the
scheme.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.2.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2482 of 2001

Maya Press Private Limited and others

...Petitioner
Versus
The
Deputy
Labour
Commissioner,
Allahabad and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri S.N. Verma
Sri P.K. Mukerjee
Sri J. Nagar
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
Sri S.U. Khan
Sri P.K. Chatterjee

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.P. Agarwal
Miss Bushra Maryam
Sri Ashwani Mishra
S.C.

U.P.
Industrial
Disputes
Act,
1947-
provisions of section 6 (W) which are
pari materia to section 25 (O) of the
Central Industrial Disputes Act, are not
violative
of
fundamental
rights
guaranteed under constitution of India,
and
thus
the
employer
can
close
industrial establishment without seeking
the permission of the State Government.

Held ( Para 9)

In the facts and circumstances, both the
aforesaid writ petitions are dismissed
with the observation that their parties
shall be permitted to take all possible
objection before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner, who shall decide the
matter as expeditiously as possible.
Case law referred:
1992 (65) FLR 961
JT 2002 (1) SC 160
2000 (1) UPLBEC 651

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.N. Verma assisted by
Sri P.K. Mukerjee for petitioner and Sri
K.P. Agarwal for contesting respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed
challenging the show cause notice dated
23.12.2000 and 30.12.2000 (annexures 2
and 5 to the writ petition) by which the
petitioners were called upon by the
Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P.,
Allahabad to appear before him for
resolving
industrial
unrest/industrial
dispute arisen between petitioner and its
workmen on account of the closure of the
establishment on 23.12.2000.

3. Entertaining the writ petition, on
the strength of decision of this Court in
Jayshree Tea Limited vs. Industrial
Tribunal (I) Allahabad, annexed as
annexure 3 to the writ petition and the
judgment in Indian Oxygen Shramik
Sangh
Vs.
Additional
Labour
Commissioner, 1992 (65) FLR 961,
annexure -4 to the writ petition, this Court
vide its order dated 22.2.2001, while
issuing notice stayed further proceedings
initiated on the basis of impugned notice
dated 30.12.2000 and 23.12.2000. The
interim order has been extended from
time to time.

4. When the matter was taken up on
23.1.2003, it was pointed out to this Court
that the view taken by the decision of this
Court to the effect that the provisions of
Section 6 (W) of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 for prior permission
are
unconstitutional,
has
not
been
approved by the Supreme Court, and that
the Supreme Court has held in M/s
Orissa Textile and Steel Ltd. Vs. State
of Orissa and others, JT 2002 (1) SC
160 that its earlier judgment in Excel
Wear's case was not properly appreciated
and that the principles laid down in
Meenakshi Mills case will apply. In
substance it was held that provisions of
Section 6 (W) of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 which are pari materia
to section 25 (O) of the Central Disputes
Act, are not violative of fundamental
rights guaranteed under Constitution of
India, and thus the employer can close
industrial establishment without seeking
the permission of the State Government.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Dayal Kushwaha V. The State of U.P. and others 177
5. After the aforesaid order, the
counsel for petitioner Sri J. Nagar sought
permission
and
was
permitted
to
withdraw from the case, and has been
substituted
by
Sri
P.K.
Chatterjee,
Advocate,
Sri
S.N.
Verma,
Senior
Counsel for petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Electro Steel
Castings Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2001 (1) UPLBEC 651 in
submitting that provisions of Section 6
(W) are not applicable to establishment
where there are more than 300 workmen.
Sri K.P. Agarwal appearing for workmen
submits that the said matter was argued
by him, and that relevant provisions of
law were not considered and which were
left to be pointed out at that stage.

6. A supplementary affidavit has
been filed by petitioner stating that during
the pendency of writ petition, some of the
workmen approached Deputy Labour
Commissioner, Allahabad in proceedings
under section 33-C (2) of the Central
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in which
the
Deputy
Labour
Commissioner,
Allahabad has allowed the application
with the direction that the applicant
workmen concerned are entitled to three
months pay as closure compensation and
three months notice pay from the
employers and further 10% interest if the
amount has not been paid within three
months. The order appears to have been
passed after notice but without benefit of
appearance on behalf of the employers,
who after some adjournments absented
from proceedings.

7. A writ petition against show cause
notice is not maintainable. The petitioner
has not filed its reply before the Deputy
Labour Commissioner nor have pleaded
that they were not required to obtain
permission of closure as they employed
less than three hundred workmen, or that
the
closure
was
effected
due
to
unavoidable circumstances. In each case
different
consequences
follow
under
industrial law.

8. The disputed facts had not been
raised before or considered by the Deputy
Labour Commissioner. It is contended by
Sri S.N. Verma that the matter has to be
referred
under
section
4
K
for
adjudication. Sri K.P. Agarwal does not
agree with the proposition. According to
him, there is no dispute to be decided and
that only computation to be made and that
the workmen are entitled to full wages on
account of illegal and inoperative closure.
As found above, this question has not
been raised or considered by the Deputy
Labour Commissioner. The industrial
unrest on account of alleged closure dated
11.3. 2000 has not been resolved as yet.

9. In the facts and circumstances,
both the aforesaid writ petitions are
dismissed with the observation that their
parties shall be permitted to take all
possible objection before the Deputy
Labour Commissioner, who shall decide
the matter as expeditiously as possible.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.2.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37210 of 2001

Dayal Kushwaha

...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh and others

 ...Respondents