# Nagar Palika Parishad, Mirzapur and another v. P.O., Labour Court and another

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 677
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-07-07
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27882 of 1997
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nagar-palika-parishad-mirzapur-and-another-v-p-o-labour-court-and-another-40157
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Service Law-Practice of procedure-Delay
in filing-Recall application to set aside
ex-parte
award-Rejected-Held-Labour
Court
rightly
rejected
no
case
for
condonation of delay out.

Held- Para 5

So far as the order refusing to entertain
the application for setting aside the exparte award is concerned, in my opinion,
the Labour Court has given sufficient
reason to the effect that the employers
have not been able to make out a case
for condonation of delay in filing the
application for setting aside the ex-parte
award, which was admittedly beyond
time and the reasons given by them have
not been believed by the Labour Court.
This Court in exercise of power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
will not sit in appeal over the findings
recorded by the Labour Court while
arriving at the conclusion that the
employers have failed to make out a
case.

## Text

3 All] Nagar Palika Parishad, Mirzapur and another V. P.O., Labour Court and another
677
reject the application, but in the rejection
order he must give reasons and must refer
to the relevant rule which will be violated
if the map is sanctioned. This procedure
will
obviate
any
misgivings
or
misapprehensions in this connection, and
will be conducive to transparency in
administration.

71. Let the Registrar General of this
Court send copy of this judgment
forthwith to the Chief Secretary and the
Urban
Development
Secretary,
U.P.
Government, who will communicate it to
the Chairman and Vice Chairman of all
Development Authorities as well as other
concerned local bodies and authorities in
U.P. with the direction that this judgement
should be strictly complied with.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 7.7.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27882 of 1997

Nagar Palika Parishad, Mirzapur and
another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Presiding
Officer,
Labour
Court,
Allahabad and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri S.N. Shukla
Sri C.K. Parekh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.S. Sharma
Sri G.S. Sharma
Sri K.S. Rathore
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Service Law-Practice of procedure-Delay
in filing-Recall application to set aside
ex-parte
award-Rejected-Held-Labour
Court
rightly
rejected
no
case
for
condonation of delay out.

Held- Para 5

So far as the order refusing to entertain
the application for setting aside the exparte award is concerned, in my opinion,
the Labour Court has given sufficient
reason to the effect that the employers
have not been able to make out a case
for condonation of delay in filing the
application for setting aside the ex-parte
award, which was admittedly beyond
time and the reasons given by them have
not been believed by the Labour Court.
This Court in exercise of power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
will not sit in appeal over the findings
recorded by the Labour Court while
arriving at the conclusion that the
employers have failed to make out a
case.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. The employers Nagar Palika
Parishad, Mirzapur aggrieved by an award
of the Labour Court, U.P., Allahabad
dated 13th March, 1995, passed in
adjudication case No. 38 of 1993, which
is an ex-parte award and the order dated
6th June, 1997 refusing to set aside the exparte award, approached this Court by
means of present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
copies whereof are annexed as Annexure-
'7' and '11' to the writ petition.

2. The following reference was
made
to
the
Labour
Court
for
adjudication:-

"D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed@deZpkjh Jh jke
ujk;u] VSDl dysDVj dh lsok;sa 11-11-1976 ls lekIr
fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS? ;fn ugha; rks
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
678 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
lacaf/kr Jfed@deZpkjh D;k fgrykHk 1⁄4fjyhQ1⁄2 ikus dk
vf/kdkjh gS ,oa vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr ?"

3. The Labour Court has given the
aforesaid award ex-parte after recording a
finding that inspite of service of notice
from the Labour Court by Registered post
A/D, nobody appeared on behalf of the
employers. The employers thereafter
moved a recall application for setting
aside
the
ex-parte
award,
which
application has been rejected by the
Labour Court on the ground that no
sufficient cause has been given for
making the application at the belated
stage. The chequered history between the
parties
of
the
litigation
clearly
demonstrates that the workman concerned
had approached the U.P. Public Service
Tribunal, which found that the claim
petition moved on behalf of the workman
is
not
maintainable.
Thereafter
the
workman preferred a writ petition before
this Court, which also found that the writ
petition is not maintainable, as the
petitioner has a remedy by way of raising
an industrial dispute. The workman
concerned thereafter raised a dispute,
which has been referred to the labour
Court, as stated above.

4. The Labour Court has held that
inspite of notice being served upon the
employers, nobody appeared on their
behalf to contest the case set up by the
workman and arrived at the conclusion
that the services of the workman were
terminated by the employers without
complying with the provision of Section
6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 and that the workman has completed
more than 240 days of working in
previous calendar year. These findings
remain
un-assailed.
Learned
counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitionersemployers tried to assail these findings
recorded by the Labour Court, but in vain.
In view of the facts and circumstances of
the case and the finding recorded by the
Labour Court, I do not find any
justification
to
interfere
with
these
findings.

5. So far as the order refusing to
entertain the application for setting aside
the ex-parte award is concerned, in my
opinion, the Labour Court has given
sufficient reason to the effect that the
employers have not been able to make out
a case for condonation of delay in filing
the application for setting aside the exparte award, which was admittedly
beyond time and the reasons given by
them have not been believed by the
Labour Court. This Court in exercise of
power
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India will not sit in appeal
over the findings recorded by the Labour
Court while arriving at the conclusion that
the employers have failed to make out a
case. This being the legal position and for
the reasons stated above, this writ petition
deserves to be dismissed.

6. However, in the interest of justice
and as argued by learned counsel for the
employers, the award of the Labour Court
is modified to the extent that the workman
concerned will be entitled only half of the
wages from the date of termination of his
services till the date of the award and
thereafter he shall be entitled to full back
wages.

7. In view of what has been stated
above, this writ petition has no merit and
is
accordingly
dismissed
with
the
modification to the extent that the
workman concerned shall be entitled to
half back wages from the date of
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Jagat Narain Singh V. Director of Education (Secondary) and others
679
termination of his services till the date of
the award and thereafter workman shall
be entitled for full back wages. The
interim order, if any, stands vacated.
However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27899 of 1998

Jagat Narain Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Director of Education (Secondary) and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.S. Diwekar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.C. Mishra
Sri S.K. Pal
Sri K.R. Singh
Ms. Manju Chauhan
S.C.

U.P.
Intermediate
Education
Act,
Regulations, Chapt.II, Regulation 6 (6)-
U.P.
Secondary
Education
Services
Selection Board Act 1982, Sec. 32-U.P.
Secondary
Education
Services
Commission Rules 1983, Rule 9-concept
of deemed approval of appointment-as
contained in Regulation 6 (6)-has been
replaced by Rule 9-by virtue of Sec. 32-in
absence
of
specific
period-plea
of
deemed approval-held not sustainable.

Held-Para 5

Even though under Regulation 6 (6) of
chapter 2 of the regulation framed under
U.P. Intermediate Education Act there
was provision that if the D.I.O.S. within
three weeks did not communicate the
decision
on
the
proposal
of
the
promotion
sent
by
committee
of
Management. It would be deemed that
D.I.O.S. had given his concurrence to the
resolution. However, under rule 9 of
1983
Rules
framed
under
the
commission Act, there was no provision
for such deemed approval if commission
did not communicate its decision within
a certain time. By virtue of section 32 of
the commission Act only those provisions
of U.P. Intermediate Education Act and
the regulations made there under in so
far as they are not in consistent with the
provisions of the commission Act or the
rules made there under shall continue to
be in force for the purposes of selection,
appointment, promotion etc of a teacher.
Regulation 6 of chapter 2 having been
virtually replaced by rule 9 of 1983 Rules
framed under the commission Act ceased
to be in force and it was rule 9 of 1983
Rules (as it stood at the relevant time),
which covered the situation.

(B) Service-Appointment-teacher in C.T.
Grade-against a substantive vacancywrongly made on adhoc basis-prescribed
procedure
not
followed-such
appointment held illegal.

Held- Para 4

In my opinion, Director has rightly
decided that vacancy was not a shortterm vacancy. Director has also rightly
held that appointment of the petitioner
on ad-hoc basis on the substantive
vacancy created by promotion of Ram
Raj Singh was illegal as procedure
prescribed
under
first
removal
of
difficulties
order
under
the
ordinance/Act was not followed as held
by the Full Bench of this Court reported
in
Radha
Raijada
1994
(Vol.III)
U.P.L.E.B.C. 1551. In view of this writ
petition filed by J.N. Singh is devoid of
any merit and is dismissed.
Case laws discussed:
1989 (2) UPLBEC 98
2002 (4) ESC 412
1998 (3) UPLBEC 1722
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in