# Royon International School Karamchari Sangh, Gautam Budh Nagar v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 3 ILRA 783
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-08-08
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27426 of 2006
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/royon-international-school-karamchari-sangh-gautam-budh-nagar-v-state-of-u-p-41196
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947-Section
4-K-Rejection to refer the dispute-on the
ground of locustandi-as the petitioner
being union is not within meaning of
aggrieved
party-held-without
jurisdiction-reference
based
on
subjective satisfaction-an administrative
function-order of refusal on denial to
784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
refer the dispute-cannot destroy the
claim-petitioner
to
approach
before
labour court.

Held: Para 5

Reference order is based on subjective
satisfaction
of
the
appropriate
Government.
Such
subjective
satisfaction relating to factual existence
of dispute or its apprehension and
expediency of making reference is not
justifiable
as
the
appropriate
Government has no power or judicial
review. The order of reference is only an
administrative function. The authority
for making a reference to Labour Court
or Industrial Tribunal by the appropriate
Government is derived from the key used
in Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 that any industrial
dispute exists or is apprehended. Once
the conciliation proceeding is moved for
settlement of any dispute then such
dispute prima facie comes into existence
and is apprehended. An administrative
order of refusal to refer a dispute cannot
destroy or destruct the right of an
aggrieved party to establish before the
Labour
Court
that
what
has
been
referred in fact is an industrial dispute.
After
existence
of
dispute
the
appropriate Government can only prima
facie has to satisfy that what is being
referred is not a frivolous or state
dispute and it can not be permitted to
delve into merits of any industrial
dispute raised by the aggrieved party. All
these questions can be decided by the
Labour Court. The petitioner may raise
all these questions before the Labour
Court for adjudication.

## Text

3 All] Royon International School Karmchari Sangh V. State of U.P. and others
783
principal in the CPKU Inter College,
Moosa Nagar, Kanpur Dehat and had a
right to claim for the transfer. His transfer
has been made against the vacancy
existed in Gangadeen Gaurishankar Inter
College
Kanpur
Nagar
on
the
recommendation of the Committee of
Management
of
both
the
colleges.
Therefore the transfer of Dr. Ajai Pal
Singh cannot be said to be illegal by any
means. Moreover, the petitioner being an
officiating principal cannot challenge the
transfer of a permanent principal and
cannot claim to be retained in the college
as officiating principal.

6. The decision cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioner of this Court in
the case of Asha Singh Versus State of
U.P. and others reported in (2007) 3
UBLBEC, 2497 is not applicable to the
present case as the facts of that case was
entirely different. In that case, in
pursuance of the advertisement published
by the U.P. Secondary Education Services
Selection Board, Allahabad for the
appointment as L.T. Grade Teacher in the
subject of Physical Education. The
petitioner applied and was successful in
the
written
examination
and
was,
therefore, invited for participation in the
Interview on 15.05.2006. The petitioner
was selected for the post of L.T. Grade
Teacher in Physical Education and
empaneled against the vacancy which was
available in Indian Girls Inter College
Allahabad. On these facts, the petitioner
challenged the transfer on the ground that
once the vacancy was advertised on a
requisition made by the Committee of
Management by the U.P. Secondary
Education
Services
Selection
Board,
Allahabad,
the
Committee
of
Management looses its discretion to resort
to mode of appointment by way of
transfer and then it is only by direct
recruitment on the recommendation of the
U.P.
Secondary
Education
Services
Selection Board, Allahabad that any
appointment
against
the
vacancy
advertised can be made.

7. In the present case, the petitioner
is not a selected candidate on the post of
principal and was only officiating on the
post of principal in the absence of any
permanent principal and, therefore, had
no right to challege the transfer of the
respondent no.6 Dr. Ajai Pal Singh.

8. In this view of the matter, the writ
petition is devoid of any merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.08.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27426 of 2006

Royon International School Karamchari
Sangh, Gautam Budh Nagar. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Miss. Bushra Maryam

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vishwa Ratan Dwivedi
S.C.

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947-Section
4-K-Rejection to refer the dispute-on the
ground of locustandi-as the petitioner
being union is not within meaning of
aggrieved
party-held-without
jurisdiction-reference
based
on
subjective satisfaction-an administrative
function-order of refusal on denial to
784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
refer the dispute-cannot destroy the
claim-petitioner
to
approach
before
labour court.

Held: Para 5

Reference order is based on subjective
satisfaction
of
the
appropriate
Government.
Such
subjective
satisfaction relating to factual existence
of dispute or its apprehension and
expediency of making reference is not
justifiable
as
the
appropriate
Government has no power or judicial
review. The order of reference is only an
administrative function. The authority
for making a reference to Labour Court
or Industrial Tribunal by the appropriate
Government is derived from the key used
in Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 that any industrial
dispute exists or is apprehended. Once
the conciliation proceeding is moved for
settlement of any dispute then such
dispute prima facie comes into existence
and is apprehended. An administrative
order of refusal to refer a dispute cannot
destroy or destruct the right of an
aggrieved party to establish before the
Labour
Court
that
what
has
been
referred in fact is an industrial dispute.
After
existence
of
dispute
the
appropriate Government can only prima
facie has to satisfy that what is being
referred is not a frivolous or state
dispute and it can not be permitted to
delve into merits of any industrial
dispute raised by the aggrieved party. All
these questions can be decided by the
Labour Court. The petitioner may raise
all these questions before the Labour
Court for adjudication.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

2. By the impugned order dated
7.10.2005 the State Government had
refused to refer the Industrial Dispute
raised by the petitioner on the ground that
the demands raised by the petitioner union
is not valid and the workers' union is not
competent to raise this dispute. The
impugned order dated 7.10.2005 is as
under:-

^^izs"kd]
lfpo] Je vuqHkkx&1
mRrj izns'k 'kklu] iks0 ck0 220
dkuiqjA

izsf"kr ea=h]

fj;ku b.Vj us'kuy Ldwy deZpkjh
la?k izrki Hkou]
uks,Mk xkSrecq) uxjA

la[;k @& @ 'kk[kk lfpoky; lh0ch0&04@2003 uks,Mk

fj;ku b.Vj us'kuy LdwyA

fo"k;%& vkS|ksfxd fookn la[;k&Mh0&46] lsDVj&39] uks,Mk
m0iz0 rFkk muds Jfedksa ds chp mRiUu vkS|ksfxd fookn
1⁄4izkFkhZ dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr fookn dks ljdkj ls
vfHkfu.kZ; gsrq vuqi;qDr le>k gSA vr,o ;g fookn
nkf[ky nQ~rj dj fn;k x;k gSA

dkj.k%& ekaxksa dk vukSfpR;iw.kZ gksuk rFkk Jfed la?k ds
ckn izLrqr djus esa v{ke gksus ds QyLo:iA

g0 viBuh;
1⁄4mi Jek;qDr m0iz01⁄2
d`rs fo'ks"k lfpoA**

3.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents submits that respondent no.4
is a private education institution and not
an industry, hence no industrial dispute
can be raised under the provisions of U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is settled
that in an Educational Institution the
teachers may not fall within the ambit of
definition of workman as given in Section
2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 but class III and IV employees are
workmen. Even if the petitioner wants to
3 All] Deewani Nyayalaya Karmchari Sangh & anr. V. The State of U.P. and others
785
raise this objection he could do so before
the Labour Court to whom the reference
may be made.

4. In my opinion, the Conciliation
Officer could not adjudicate upon the
dispute as to whether demands by the
workmen are justified or not and whether
the union was competent to raise the
dispute
or
the
workman
himself
individually are missed questions of facts
and law. These can be decided only on
basis of evidence which may be adduced
by the parties.

5. Reference order is based on
subjective satisfaction of the appropriate
Government. Such subjective satisfaction
relating to factual existence of dispute or
its apprehension and expediency of
making reference is not justifiable as the
appropriate Government has no power or
judicial review. The order of reference is
only an administrative function. The
authority for making a reference to
Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal by the
appropriate Government is derived from
the key used in Section 4K of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that any
industrial
dispute
exists
or
is
apprehended.
Once
the
conciliation
proceeding is moved for settlement of any
dispute then such dispute prima facie
comes into existence and is apprehended.
An administrative order of refusal to refer
a dispute cannot destroy or destruct the
right of an aggrieved party to establish
before the Labour Court that what has
been referred in fact is an industrial
dispute. After existence of dispute the
appropriate Government can only prima
facie has to satisfy that what is being
referred is not a frivolous or state dispute
and it can not be permitted to delve into
merits of any industrial dispute raised by
the aggrieved party. All these questions
can be decided by the Labour Court. The
petitioner may raise all these questions
before the Labour Court for adjudication.

6. For the reasons stated above, the
writ petition is allowed and the impugned
order dated 7.10.2005 is quashed. The
respondents are directed to consider the
matter of reference afresh within 15 days
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order.

7. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19182 of 2008

Deevani Nyayalaya Karmchari Sangh and
another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Radha Kant Ojha
Sri Arun Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Amit Sthalekar
Sri Yashwant Verma
Sri Vivek Srivastava
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Entitlment of C.C.A. and H.R.A.-Class III
and
IV
employee
working
under
judgeship of Kanpur Dehat-denial of said
benefit as per employees working in
judgeship of Kanpur City-the decision of
committee as well as the decision of
Govt. based on mis reading of G.O. dated
11.6.99 and other various Govt. orders
issued from time to time-both the