# S. Parween v. State of U.P. & others - **Citation:** (1999) 1 ILRA 171 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 1999 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/s-parween-v-state-of-u-p-others-39084 - **Pages:** 5 ## Text 1 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES 171 in the service of the State or the central Government or any local authority. Learned councel for the petitioner alleged that in view of section 9 of the aforesaid Act person who is a M.L.A. has right to be a member that is no doubt correct but once a person becomes Minister he is in Government service under Article 164 of the Constitution of India and he is entitiled to a salary as a Minister. Hence Ram Asrey Paswan was dis-qualified the Total number of the members of the Gram panchayat in our opinion was only 14. However, 9 out 14 is 0.64, whereas 2/3rd is 0.66. Hence assuming that members of Gram Panchayat did not vote against the petitioner in the no confidence was passed against the petitioner. As a result this petition is allowed. The impugned motion of no confidence dated 25.7.98 is quashed shall be continue functioning as the chairman of Nagar Panchayat, Maghar, sant Kabir Nagar. 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 &,9,/ 6,'( &,9,/ 6,'( '$7(' $//$+$%$' '$7(' $//$+$%$' %()25( %()25( 7+( +21·%/( $/2.( &+$.5$%$57, - 7+( +21·%/( $/2.( &+$.5$%$57, - :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI 0V %+(/ +DULGZDU «3HWLWLRQHU 9HUVXV 3UHVLGLQJ 2IILFHU /DERXU &RXUW 0HHUXW «5HVSRQGHQWV DQG DQRWKHU &RXQVHO IRU WKH SHWLWLRQHU 6UL %KDUDW -L $JDUZDO 6UL 7DUXQ $JUDZDO &RXQVHO IRU WKH UHVSRQGHQWV 6& 0U 6XPDQ 6LURKL 0LVV 0RKLQL 0DXUL\D 6UL 5DYL .LUDQ -DLQ 6UL 6KDPVKXO +DVDQ 1998 ------ S. Parween Vs. State of U.P. & others ------ M.Katju, J. S.L.Saraf, J. 1998 ------ November,10 172 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999 $UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD2WKH TXHVWLRQ RI ORVV RI FRQILGHQFH ZDV QRW FRQVLGHUHG DW DOO E\ WKH ODERXU FRXUW27KH /DERXU &RXUW IDLOHG WR GLVFKDUJH LWV IXQFWLRQ E\ QRW FRQVLGHULQJ WKH TXHVWLRQ RI ORVV RI FRQILGHQFH2WKH LPSXJQHG DZDUG LV TXDVKHG DQG WKH PDWWHU LV UHPDQGHG EDFN WR WKH /DERXU &RXUW IRU GHFLGLQJ DIUHVK By The Court The award dated 5.11.1994 is the subject matter of challenging here at the instance of employer. A charger sheet had been issued against the respondent no.2 workman relating to claim of leave travel concession and upon completion of disciplinary proceeding by order dated 26.12.1975, the Respondent no.2 workman had been dismissed. The dispute having been referred to, the Labour court decided the same by the impunged award. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner employer contended that in the impugned award there is no finding as to whether the enquiry was fair and proper although an issue to the said effect had been raised as additional issue no.3. Further contention of the learned councel for the petitioner was that the award had been given in favour of the workman solely on the ground that the charges levelled did not come within the provision of clause c of paragraph 20 of the standing Orders and therefore the order of dismissal had been quashed with consequential direction. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in view of the charges levelled, the question of loss of confidence of the employer was there and an additional issue no.4 was therfore raised. But the labour Court did notdecide the said charge and reinstatement had been granted without even deciding the same. In this connection it was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that even if the question of compensation comes up instead of reinstatement the aggregate of the amounts paid for a long period by the petitioner employer to the respondent workman month by month in terms of the interim order granted is sufficient amount towards compensation and the workman concerned remains entitled to no further amount towards compensation. Learned councel for the workman contended that even if enquiry is fair and proper, the labour Court can interfere with the quantum of punishment and in support of such contention reference was made to 1998 ------ M/s B.H.E.L. Haridwar Vs. P.O.,Labour Court,Meerut & another ------ Aloke Chakrabarti, J. 1 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES 173 the case of workman of M/s Fire Stone Tyre Rubber Company of India Private Limited Vs. management and other reported in AIR 1973 SC 1227 and the case of Scooter India Limited Vs. labour Court reported in AIR 1989 SC 149. With regard to the contention relating to charge levelled and the provision of paragraph 20 © of standing Orders it has been contended on behalf of workman that as the charge levelled was governed by the said provision of Standing Counsel Order, the said award cannot be interferred with. It has been further contended that submission of claim for travel concessiondid not touch the business of employer as it did not relate to any transaction of the employer with its customer or any third party and therfore the said provision of paragraphno.20© of the Standing order did not apply. The law decided in the case of Co-operative Central Bank Limited Vs. Additional Industrial Tribunal reported in Air 1970 SC 245 was referred to. With regard to the question of applicability of paragraph 20 (c) if the Standing Order, the said provision of paragraph 20 ( c) requires to be considered first and the same runs as follows : "20-Act and omission of the types mentioned below shall be treated as misconduct; ** ** ** ( c) Theft, fraud, dishonesty in connection with the business or property of the project ** ** ** The charge levelled against the petitioner was as follows: "That in your leave travel concession bill dated 7.8.1975 you have claim an amount of Rs. 2500/- towards the reimbursement of expenses in respect of journey from Haridwar to Bombay and back by Taxi No. DLY 82 and attached a receipt No.136 dated 22.7.75 signed by Sri Darshan Singh on the letter head pad of Darshan Tourist Taxi Service Hardwar in support of your claim. It has been found that the aforesaid receipt and your aforesaid claim are false." 1998 ------ M/s B.H.E.L. Haridwar Vs. P.O.,Labour Court,Meerut & another ------ Aloke Chakrabarti, J. 174 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999 In view of aforesaid language of the charge, now it is to be considered whether the same amounts to fraud or dishonesty in connection with the business of employer. The definition of word "business" has been shown on behalf of the petitioner referring to the Black's Law Dictionery. The same is as follows: "Business-Employment, occupation, profession, or commercial activity engaged in for gain or livelihood. Activity or enterprise for gain, benefit advantage or livelihood. Union League Club V. Higbsib, 18 Cal.2d275, 108 p.2d487,490. Enterprise in which person engaged shows willingness to invest time and capital on future outcome. Coggett V. Burnet 62 App. D.C.102,65 F.2d 191,194. That which habitually busies or occupies or engages the time, attention, labor, and effort of persons as a principal serious concern or interest of for livelihood or profit." Taking into consideration the aforesaid definition and the provision of the Standing Orders, I am of the opinion that the offence alleged need not touch the transaction of the employer with its customers or any third party and fraud or dishonesty, if is in connection with the employment and it is by the employee and is with regard to property of the employer, such fraud or dishonesty is in connection with the business of the employer and therefore the offence alleged comes within the provision of the paragraph 20 ( c) of the Standing Orders. With regard to question of loss of confidence, I find that an issue had been raised relation to the said aspect before the labour court but in the said award the labour court while considering the said issue has stated that the said issue, being issue no.5, had been considered alongwith other issues and award had been passed there upon. But, upon a consideration of the said award, it does not appear that the question of loss of confidence had at all been considered. The aforesaid aspect having not been considered, it appears that the labour court failed to discharge its function in respect of the said issue. In view of the aforesaid findings both with regard to applicability of paragraph 20© of standing Orders and with regard to decision on loss of confidence, the impugned award is liable to be quashed and the matter requires to be decided afresh by the concerned labour court. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned award 1998 ------ M/s B.H.E.L. Haridwar Vs. P.O.,Labour Court,Meerut & another ------ Aloke Chakrabarti, J. 1 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES 175 dated 5.11.1984 at annexure no.7 to the writ petition is quashed . The labour Court concerned is directed to decide the matter afresh in accordence with law following the observation made in the present judgement. As the matter is a very old one, the labour court is directed to decided the matter within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 &,9,/ 6,'( &,9,/ 6,'( '$7(' $//$+$%$' '$7(' $//$+$%$' %()25( %()25( 7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 - 7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 - 7+( +21·%/( '. 6(7+ - 7+( +21·%/( '. 6(7+ - :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI 6RKLO 6RFLHW\ IRU :HOIDUH «3HWLWLRQHU 9HUVXV 8QLRQ RI ,QGLD DQRWKHU «5HVSRQGHQWV &RXQVHO IRU WKH SHWLWLRQHU 6UL 5DMHQGUD 'KREKDO &RXQVHO IRU WKH UHVSRQGHQWV 6& 6UL 61 6ULYDVWDYD 6UL %DO 0XNXQG 6UL 6UL $VKRN 0HKWD /&6& $UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ2LW LV PDQGDWRU\ IRU 8QLRQ RI ,QGLD WR IROORZ LWV RZQ DV ZHOO DV :RUOG +HDOWK 2UJDQLVDWLRQ JXLGHOLQHV IRU PDQXIDFWXUH DQG SURFXUHPHQW RI 239 DQG WR DGKHUH WR WKH LQWHUQDWLRQDOO\ DFFHSWHG VWDQGDUGV DQG QRUPV IRU SROLR HUDGLFDWLRQ By the Court Heard Sri A.D.Giri Learned Senior Advocate and Sri Rajendra Dobhal for the petitioner Sri bal Mukund for the Central Government and Sri Haider Hussain for the State Government This petition has been filed as a public interest litigation for directing the respondent no.1 Union of India , to strictly follow its own guidelines as well as the guidelines of World Health Organisation for manufacture and procurement of Oral Polio Vaccine (O.P.V.) 1998 ------ November, 16