# Mohar Singh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Agra & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 309
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-12-07
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 20773 of 2020
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohar-singh-v-presiding-officer-labour-court-u-p-agra-anr-46008
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Labour Law - The Uttar Pradesh
Industrial
Disputes
Act,
1947
-
Section 4-K - Reference of disputes
to
labour
court
or
Tribunal
-
Termination of services - Labour
Court
is
a
Court
of
referred
jurisdiction - Labour Court, unlike a
court of general jurisdiction, cannot
answer anything, but what has been
referred to it - impugned award is
not liable to be disturbed and is
upheld. (Para -15,16)

Petitioner is a workman, whose services have
been terminated by the Employers - reference
made to the Labour Court, under Section 4-K
of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 - reference has been answered against
the workman and in favour of the Employers -
What has been referred to the Labour Court,
is a dispute about the validity of the
termination of the workman's services w.e.f.
20.02.2004 by the Employers, whereas the
dispute is one about his transfer on that
date.(Para - 2,3,4,15)

HELD:-Workman's services being never
terminated, the Labour Court could not have
decided the validity of the transfer on a
reference made about termination of his
services. The reference made certainly does
not clothe the Labour Court with jurisdiction
to decide upon the validity of the transfer
order dated 20.02.2004. It is, however,
ordered
that
the
Deputy
Labour
Commissioner/ State Government, whoever
is competent, shall make a fresh reference,
under Section 4-K of the Act of 1947 in
appropriate terms, referring the dispute that
arises between parties, bearing in mind what
has been said in this judgment. (Para -
15,16)

Writ petition disposed off. (E-6)

List of Cases cited :-

M/S Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs
St. Of U.P. & 2 ors. , WRIT - C No.52897 of
2017, decided on 05.02.2020
310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

1 All. Mohar Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Agra & Anr.
309
condition is required to be fulfilled and the
same does not require a seal of approval by
any officer or authority. In the present case,
it is alleged that by a resolution passed
unanimously i.e. by more than three-fifth
members of the society on 1.4.2011, the
society has been dissolved, as such, no
further approval is required and the
dissolution would be deemed to be
effective from the date of its passing i.e.
1.4.2011.

17. As I have recorded above that no
seal of approval is required for dissolving
the society as has been done in the present
case, a writ, as prayed for cannot be
granted, however, petitioners are directed
to give an information in writing along with
the copy of Resolution to the Assistant
Registrar of Societies who shall record the
same in his records.

18. The writ is disposed off.

18. The writ petition is disposed off.
----------
(2021)01ILR A309
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ C No. 20773 of 2020

Mohar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Agra
& Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Alok Krishan Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
(A) Labour Law - The Uttar Pradesh
Industrial
Disputes
Act,
1947
-
Section 4-K - Reference of disputes
to
labour
court
or
Tribunal
-
Termination of services - Labour
Court
is
a
Court
of
referred
jurisdiction - Labour Court, unlike a
court of general jurisdiction, cannot
answer anything, but what has been
referred to it - impugned award is
not liable to be disturbed and is
upheld. (Para -15,16)

Petitioner is a workman, whose services have
been terminated by the Employers - reference
made to the Labour Court, under Section 4-K
of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 - reference has been answered against
the workman and in favour of the Employers -
What has been referred to the Labour Court,
is a dispute about the validity of the
termination of the workman's services w.e.f.
20.02.2004 by the Employers, whereas the
dispute is one about his transfer on that
date.(Para - 2,3,4,15)

HELD:-Workman's services being never
terminated, the Labour Court could not have
decided the validity of the transfer on a
reference made about termination of his
services. The reference made certainly does
not clothe the Labour Court with jurisdiction
to decide upon the validity of the transfer
order dated 20.02.2004. It is, however,
ordered
that
the
Deputy
Labour
Commissioner/ State Government, whoever
is competent, shall make a fresh reference,
under Section 4-K of the Act of 1947 in
appropriate terms, referring the dispute that
arises between parties, bearing in mind what
has been said in this judgment. (Para -
15,16)

Writ petition disposed off. (E-6)

List of Cases cited :-

M/S Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs
St. Of U.P. & 2 ors. , WRIT - C No.52897 of
2017, decided on 05.02.2020
310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Alok Krishan Tripathi,
learned Counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Standing Counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent no.1.

2. The petitioner is a workman, whose
services have been terminated by the
Employers, the second respondent.

3. The following reference was made
to the Labour Court, under Section 4-K of
the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (for short, ''the Act of 1947'):

"क्या सेिायोजक पक्ष द्िारा श्रलमक श्री
मोहर लसंह पुत्र श्री थि0 विजय लसंह की सेिायें
दिनांक 20.02.2004 से समाप्ि ककया जाना
उचिि अििा िैधातनक है? यदि नहीं, िो
संबंचधि श्रलमक क्या लाभ/ ररलीर् पाने का
अचधकारी है, ििा अन्य ककस वििरण सदहि?"

4. The said reference has been
answered against the workman and in
favour of the Employers.

5. The workman's case elaborately set
out
in
his
written
statement
dated
19.04.2007 filed before the Labour Court is
this: He was appointed as a peon at the
Hindustan
College
of
Science
and
Technology, Farah, District Mathura (for
short, ''the College') on 03.07.1998. The
said College are the Employers. They are a
unit of the Sharda Educational Trust. The
Employers are recognized by the Uttar
Pradesh Technical University, Lucknow.
The workman discharged his assigned
duties with devotion and sincerity with no
cause of complaint ever to the Employers.
In the year 2003, the workman was
drawing a salary of Rs.2100/- per mensem.
These emoluments, looking to the dearness,
were far from adequate compensation. As
such, the workman, along with other
similarly circumstanced workmen, put forth
their demand to the Employers for a raise.
The Employers said that they would
consider it in the next month. In the month
of July, 2003, the demand was reiterated
and led to the same response that the
demand would be considered during the
following month. The Employers instead of
considering the workman's demand, acting
on a stratagem, suspended him pending
inquiry by an order dated 28.08.2003.

6. It was mentioned incorrectly in the
suspension order that the workman was
transferred to the Agra Headquarters by an
order dated 21.08.2003, but he did not join
in compliance with that order. It was
indicated in the suspension order that since
the workman did not comply with the
transfer order, he was involved in activities
against the Employers. The workman by a
letter dated 01.09.2003, sent by registered
post to the Employers, disputed the
aforesaid allegations as incorrect and made
up. However, the Employers without
considering the workman's letter of 1st
September, served him with a charge sheet
dated 03.09.2003. The workman submitted
his written statement to the charge sheet on
04.09.2003. The
charges
against
the
workman were of disobeying the transfer
order and being involved in activities
against the interest of the Employers, both
of which are asserted to be false and made
up. These charges had been brought in
order to harass the workman with an object
to suppress the just demand for a raise
made
by
him
and
other
similarly
circumstanced workmen. It was a measure
of reprisal and to make an example out of
the workman, lost the others come up with
a demand for a raise. The workman was not
given any appointment letter or was there
1 All. Mohar Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Agra & Anr.
311
any
condition
carried
in
terms
of
appointment that he could be transferred. In
addition, the workman was never served
with the so called transfer order, the
disobedience of which he was charged.

7. An inquiry was held into charges
by one Sukhveer Singh, an Inquiry Officer,
appointed by the Employers. The Inquiry
Officer did not conclude the inquiry, but
the suspension was withdrawn by a letter
dated 19.02.2004. The letter said that the
workman should go and join the Agra
office on 28.02.2004. This shows that in
the past, there was no transfer order and to
fill up that lacuna, the letter dated
19.02.2004 was issued. The letter dated
19.02.2004 was again issued to harass the
workman. The Employers did not intend to
take him back in employment. On the one
hand,
the
Employers
initiated
a
departmental inquiry, suspending him from
service, and on the other they withdrew the
suspension order, requiring the workman to
join at the Agra office, both of which are
stances that are inconsistent action.

8. In answer to the letter dated
19.02.2004,
the
workman
made
an
application dated 20.02.2004, pointing out
the inconsistency in the Employers' stand,
attended with a request to reinstate him
with back-wages. The Employers refused
to accept the workman's application dated
20.02.2004. Instead, they sent a copy of the
letter dated 19.02.2004, again, to the
workman by fax. The workman's services
were terminated by an oral order on
20.02.2004, without serving him with a
charge sheet or undertaking disciplinary
proceedings
or
retrenching
him
in
accordance with the law. Dispensation of
the workman's services w.e.f. 20.02.2004
constitutes unlawful retrenchment. The
workman
is
going
without
gainful
employment. He is entitled to be reinstated
with back-wages.

9. The Employers filed a detailed
written statement on 24.01.2008 before the
Labour Court. Their written statement
carries a detailed defence and many facts
about the dealings and actions between the
workman and the Employers, that has led
to the industrial dispute. What stands out in
the Employers defence is the fact that the
workman was transferred by an order dated
20.08.2003 to their Agra office, located at
10, Jawahar Nagar, Khandari, Agra. The
workman never complied with the transfer
order, last mentioned. Instead, he indulged
in false propaganda against the Employers
and presented a complaint against them to
the Uttar Pradesh Technical University. He
was,
therefore,
charge-sheeted
on
28.08.2003 and placed under suspension,
pending inquiry. During the course of
inquiry, the workman disclosed to the
Inquiry Officer that he had no knowledge
about
the
transfer
order.
Therefore,
concluding the inquiry, the Employers
directed the workman by their order dated
19.02.2004 to join at Agra, granting him
time until 28.02.2004, for the purpose. This
transfer order was put to challenge in a
Civil Suit instituted by the workman before
the learned Civil Judge, Mathura and he
also approached the Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Mathura, with the same
grievance.

10. Shorn of unnecessary details, it
must be recorded that the stand of the
Employers is that they never terminated the
workman's services. To them, he is still in
service. The reference has been secured to
forestall any action that the Employers may
take
against
the
workman
for
his
continuing disobedience of the order of
transfer.
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. The Labour Court has considered
the case of the parties and the evidence on
record, led on both sides. He has recorded a
finding to the effect that the services of the
workman have not been terminated, but the
dispute appears to be that the workman
wants to serve at Mathura, and not at Agra.
The dispute involved, therefore, is not at all
about termination, but the validity of the
transfer order dated 20.02.2004, which the
workman has characterized as termination
of his services, which in fact it is not. The
Labour Court has held that if the validity of
the transfer order dated 20.02.2004 is to be
judged, a reference in appropriate terms is
to be made. The reference here being about
termination of the workman's services from
20.02.2004, the validity of the workman's
transfer w.e.f. 20.02.2004, cannot be
answered by the Labour Court on a
reference cast in those terms. It is on this
account
that
the
Labour
Court
has
answered
the
reference
against
the
workman in terms that his services have not
been terminated w.e.f. 20.02.2004.

12. This Court has carefully perused
the record and heard Mr. Alok Kumar
Tripathi in considerable detail in support of
the motion to admit this petition to hearing.
The learned Standing Counsel has opposed
that motion.

13. A perusal of the material on
record and the case of parties does indicate
that the substance of the dispute between
them is whether the workman can be
transferred
from
the
Employers'
establishment
at
Mathura
to
their
establishment at Agra. The stand of the
Employers
is
clear
that
they never
terminated the workman's services. Rather,
they have transferred him out of Mathura
and posted him at Agra. The workman
assails that right of the Employers to
transfer him out of Mathura. He wants to
continue serving them at Mathura. The
essence of the dispute between parties,
therefore, appears to be whether the
Employers
can
validly
transfer
the
workman from Mathura to Agra. It is not at
all about termination of the workman's
service. The order dated 20.02.2004 is also
an order requiring the workman to join at
Agra. It is a transfer order in substance and
not an order of termination of services. The
reference made in this case, however,
proceeds on the basis that the workman's
services have been terminated w.e.f.
20.02.2004.

14. The Labour Court, on the basis of
the respective case of parties and the
evidence on record, found that the
workman's services have never been
terminated.
That
conclusion
is
not
incorrect, particularly, in the face of the
Employers' categorical stand that they have
never terminated the workman's services
and still would treat him to be part of their
establishment. The reference, therefore, in
the opinion of this Court ought to have
been about the validity of the transfer order
dated 20.02.2004.

15. The Labour Court is a Court of
referred jurisdiction. It can decide what is
referred to it. It cannot decided something
else. What has been referred to the Labour
Court, is a dispute about the validity of the
termination of the workman's services
w.e.f. 20.02.2004 by the Employers,
whereas the dispute is one about his
transfer on that date. The workman's
services being never terminated, the Labour
Court could not have decided the validity
of the transfer on a reference made about
termination of his services. It has to be
remembered that the Labour Court, unlike a
court of general jurisdiction, cannot answer
1 All. Mohar Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Agra & Anr.
313
anything, but what has been referred to it.
In this connection, reference may be made
to the decision of this Court in M/S Super
Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State
Of U.P. And 2 Others, WRIT - C
No.52897 of 2017, decided on 05.02.2020.
In M/S Super Cassettes Industrial Pvt. Ltd.
(supra), I had occasion to consider this
question, where it was held:

"38. It may be true or otherwise
that under the Certified Standing Orders,
the Employers have power to transfer the
workman away to the unit at Mumbai. The
Model Standing Orders, 1991, if they apply
in preference to the Certified Standing
Orders, may or may not permit a transfer
for the workman outside the State without
his consent. This Court, however, would
refrain from expressing any opinion about
the issue. The reason is that the Labour
Court is a Court of referred jurisdiction
and
a
creature
of
the
statute.
Its
jurisdiction
is
limited
to
answering
questions that are expressly referred to it
under Section 2-K of the Act. It may,
however, go into incidental questions while
answering the reference.

39.
The
very
persuasive
submission of Sri Shekhar Srivastava
urging this Court to take the view that the
order of transfer, dated 10.06.1996 is in
fact an order of termination, that is
camouflaged as a transfer order, cannot be
regarded as an incidental issue to the
reference made. The reference is express in
its terms and speaks about an order of
termination dated 10.02.1996. It does not
speak about the validity of the transfer
order, dated 10.02.1996. In fact, there is no
order of termination from service passed
on 10.02.1996. Even if the order of transfer
were a camouflage to terminate the
workman's services, and that too unlawful,
consistent judicial opinion confines the
Labour Court in its jurisdiction to answer
whatever
is
referred
to
it
by
the
appropriate Government. Unlike a Court of
general jurisdiction or a Court of superior
jurisdiction, it does not have authority to
determine
its
own
jurisdiction.
Its
jurisdiction flows from the terms of the
order of reference, and in no way can the
Labour Court travel beyond its terms.
Incidental questions are quite different and
these could be like the date from which
wages are to be granted in the case of
termination, that is declared unlawful, but
would not include the rate of wages in a
case where the reference is against the
validity of an order of termination. Rate of
wages can be decided if that is the subject
matter of reference to the Labour Court;
not otherwise. This would well illustrate the
difference between incidental questions and
those that are substantial, but not referred
to adjudication. This principle is most
eloquently expressed in the decision of
their Lordships in Tata Iron and Steel
Company Limited (supra) and also by this
Court in M/s Triveni Engineering and
Industrial Ltd. (supra).

45.
Unfortunately
for
the
workman here, the reference in the terms
made does not clothe the Labour Court
with jurisdiction to look into the validity of
the order of transfer, dated 10.02.1996.
The industrial dispute here has been
referred in most callously worded terms
dubbing a transfer order as one of
termination, rendering the entire exercise
before the Labour Court a nullity, whatever
be the merits of the parties' case. Here, the
Authority empowered under Section 4-K of
the Act has utterly failed to refer what on
its plain terms was an industrial dispute,
relating to the validity of the transfer order
dated 10.02.1996. If the dispute that
actually arose between the parties were
referred, depending upon the finding of the
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Labour Court about the validity of the
order of transfer, the logical incidents of it
would flow, to whichever parties' gain or
prejudice it might have been. About this
reference, this Court has no hesitation to
hold that it is without any basis, and on the
date it was made or with reference to the
Employers' order that it was made, there
was no termination of services for the
workman. The industrial dispute in the
terms it was referred was completely nonexistent. The Labour Court being a Court
of referred jurisdiction, could not have
gone beyond or behind the terms of
reference in which the industrial dispute
sent to it was cast."

16. In view of the clear position of the
law and the nature of dispute, that is
involved here between the workman and
the
Employers,
the
reference
made
certainly does not clothe the Labour Court
with jurisdiction to decide upon the validity
of the transfer order dated 20.02.2004.
Accordingly, the impugned award is not
liable to be disturbed and is upheld. It is,
however, ordered that the Deputy Labour
Commissioner/ State Government, whoever
is competent, shall make a fresh reference,
under Section 4-K of the Act of 1947 in
appropriate terms, referring the dispute that
arises between parties, bearing in mind
what has been said in this judgment.

17. This writ petition is disposed of
in terms of the aforesaid orders. There shall
be no order as to costs.

18. Let this order be communicated to
the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Agra
Region, Agra, U.P. by the Joint Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2021)01ILR A314
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 21066 of 2020

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Uma Devi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Parv Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Civil law - General Insurance
Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972 -
Section 9 & Section 16 - petitioner -
insurance company is fully owned
subsidiary of the General Insurance
Corporation of India - a Government
Company - State within the meaning
of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India - National Litigation Policy -
Government should be a responsible
litigant
-
should
not
involve
in
frivolous litigation - Prioritisation in
litigation has to be achieved with
particular
emphasis
on
welfare
legislation,
social
reform,
weaker
sections and senior citizens and other
categories requiring assistance must
be given utmost priority - In contract
of insurance, rights and obligations
are strictly governed by the policy of
insurance - terms of the insurance
policy have to be strictly construed in
order to determine the extent of the
liability
of
the
insurer.(Para
-
17,19,27,29)