# Saroj Devi and Ors v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 821
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-05-20
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12367 of 2010
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/saroj-devi-and-ors-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42612
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-
Workman-whether
includes
officers
grade III-Area manager-Tribunal rightly
rejected the return as the petitioner fail
to reply the quarry regarding status-that
being so-question of fact can not be
interfered
under
writ
jurisdictionpetition dismissed.

Held: Para-15
Since the Tribunal, in the facts of the
case, has held that Arvind Mehrotra did
not answer the definition of workmen
within the meaning of the word under
the Industrial Disputes Act, it has rightly
come to the conclusion that reference
itself was not competent. It is settled
law that if a Tribunal has no jurisdiction
to examine the dispute, then no order of
the
writ
Court
can
confer
such
jurisdiction.

Case Law discussed:
1985 UPLBEC 789; 1986 UPLBEC 38

## Text

2 All] Saroj Devi and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
821
her for dire consequence in case she
claims the children.

3. Respondent no.4 and 5 being
mother and son have filed no counter
affidavit rather in pursuance of the order
of this Court they produced both the
children in the court and on query by the
court they expressed no objection if the
children are given to their mother
petitioner no.1. It is known to all concern
that immediate welfare of the infants is of
prime consideration but being completely
innocent and of tender age there was no
point in putting any question to them.
Both of them had a completely innocent
look . None can deny the fact that it is
misfortune for the children who have been
deprived by the love, affection, care and
close contact of their mother, petitioner
no.1. Considering their age no one other
than the mother petitioner no.1 can
bestow extreme affection and warmth
love which spontaneously flow from the
mother who gave birth to the children.
The welfare of these two infants children
lies there being handed over to their
mother in preference to their father
respondent
no.4
or
grand
mother
respondent no.5 who cannot be expected
to bestow at present or in the years to
come that affection and care which the
two infant children are entitled to get
from their mother. In the facts and
circumstances of the case it is essential
and beneficial even for the health of the
mother to have her children of these age
and feed them her natural milk from her
breast which is beneficial to the health of
both the corpus as well.

4. It is also in the interest of two
infants corpus that their father Rajesh
Singh respondent no.4 and their grand
mother respondent no.5 Smt. Aruna Devi
may have access to see their infants to
bestow their love and affection and to
know their welfare at intervals.

5. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 are
directed to hand over Prithwi Singh
petitioner no.2 and Priya Singh petitioner
no.3 to the custody of their mother Smt.
Saroj Devi petitioner no.1 who is directed
to take full care and protection of the
children. She is at liberty to seek
maintenance for herself and for her
children
from
respondent
no.4
in
accordance with law. At this stage
respondent nos. 4 and 5 have handed over
the children ( both the corpus) to their
mother petitioner no.1 in the court itself.
Fact is observed accordingly.

6. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 are
restrained from making any kind of
interference in the peaceful custody of the
children with their mother Saroj Devi
petitioner no.1.

7. However, respondent nos. 4 and 5
are given liberty to approach the place
where petitioner no.1 presently resides
along with her children (corpus) on the
1st Sunday of each calendar month in
between 10.00 A.M. to 2.00 P.M.
Petitioner no.1 is directed to allow them
to see and meet with both the corpus and
to play with them if they so desire. In the
event of any problem or hurdle in this
regard aggrieved party may apply to this
court for a direction or clarification.

8. Writ of habeas corpus stands
allowed accordingly. Parties shall bear
their own costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2013
822 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12367 of 2010

Arvind Mehrotra

 ...Petitioner
Versus
M/S Shervani Industrial Syndicate Ltd. &
Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri P.K. Mukherjee

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-
Workman-whether
includes
officers
grade III-Area manager-Tribunal rightly
rejected the return as the petitioner fail
to reply the quarry regarding status-that
being so-question of fact can not be
interfered
under
writ
jurisdictionpetition dismissed.

Held: Para-15
Since the Tribunal, in the facts of the
case, has held that Arvind Mehrotra did
not answer the definition of workmen
within the meaning of the word under
the Industrial Disputes Act, it has rightly
come to the conclusion that reference
itself was not competent. It is settled
law that if a Tribunal has no jurisdiction
to examine the dispute, then no order of
the
writ
Court
can
confer
such
jurisdiction.

Case Law discussed:
1985 UPLBEC 789; 1986 UPLBEC 38

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. Petitioner before this Court was
employed with M/s. Shervani Syndicate
Ltd., Allahabad. His services were put to
an end on 12.05.1995.

3.

Not
being
satisfied
with
termination of his service, petitioner filed
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24520 of
1995. In the said writ petition, an
objection was raised that the petitioner
had the remedy before the Industrial
Court under the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. The writ Court dismissed the
petition after recording that the petitioner
may pursue his alternative remedy under
the provisions of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and the Industrial
Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946.

4. Against the said order, the
petitioner filed Special Appeal No. 1051
of 2001 which was dismissed on
11.09.2006
and
the
petitioner
was
relegated to the remedy as aforesaid.

5. Accordingly, the petitioner raised
an industrial dispute which was referred
under notification dated 23.11.2007 to the
Industrial Tribunal I, U.P., Allahabad.
Before
the
Industrial
Tribunal
an
objection was raised that the petitioner did
not answer the description of workman as
he had been promoted on the post of Area
Sales Manager in the month of October,
1989 and that the duties which were being
discharged by the petitioner as Area Sales
Manager were purely managerial and
supervisory in nature. It was also pointed
out that the salary of the petitioner on the
relevant date was more than Rs. 4000/-.

6. The petitioner filed reply to the
said objection of the employers and stated
that he was performing the duties as
assigned to him under the control of the
Administrator of the Company which
were neither managerial nor supervisory
in
nature.
2 All] Arvind Mehrotra Vs. M/s Shervani Industrial Syndicate ltd. & Ors.
823

7. The Labour Court framed an issue
for deciding as to whether the petitioner
answers the description of workman or
not. Evidence was led by the parties on
the said issue. The Labour Court after
considering the evidence brought on
record has held that the petitioner does
not answer the description of workman.
He was working as Officer of the
Company exercising managerial and
supervisory
powers,
therefore,
the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act
will not be attracted. It is against this
Award of the Industrial Tribunal that the
present writ petition has been filed.

8. Counsel for the petitioner
vehemently contended that the petitioner
was basically refused to promote the sales
of the Company and that the Labour
Court has failed to consider that the
nature
of
job
assigned
was
not
supervisory or managerial and, therefore,
he was a workman. (Reference paragraph
nos. 31 and 32 of the writ petition).

9. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and have gone through the
records of the present writ petition.

10. The Labour Court under the
order impugned has referred to the order
of promotion of the petitioner as Officer
dated
01.10.1989
(Exhibit
E-1)
whereunder the petitioner was promoted
as
Officer
Grade-III
and
thereafter
designated as Area Sales Manager. It has
also referred to the circulars which were
issued by the Company between 1990 to
1992
(Exhibits
4
and
5)
which
demonstrated that the Area Sales Manager
were authorized to engage staff including
Sales Representative, Supervisor, Clerk
and Peon as well as to supervise the work
assigned to each of them. It has been
found as matter of fact that Arvind
Mehrotra was engaged as an Officer
Grade-III. The duties assigned to him
were managerial and supervisory in
nature. It has been recorded that the
petitioner
could
not
dislodge
the
contention of the Employer which was
based on the evidence brought on record.
Accordingly, it has been held that the
reference itself was not competent.

11. This Court may notice that in
paragraph nos. 31 and 32 of the writ
petition, there are only vague allegations
for suggesting that the petitioner actually
did
not
discharge
any
supervisory/managerial
duties.
It
is
worthwhile to reproduce paragraph nos.
31 and 32, which read as follows :

"31. That the Labour Tribunal while
deciding
the
adjudication
case
on
preliminary issue has also failed to
consider the most material and relevant
fact that as per nature of job assigned to
the petitioner it is clear that the petitioner
was not assigned any Supervisory or
managerial work. Therefore, petitioner is
a workman within the meaning of
Industrial Disputes Act.

32. That while considering the status
of the employees as workman it is the
nature of duty or work assigned has to be
considered and not designated and from
the nature of duties assigned to the
petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner
was not assigned any supervisory or
managerial work, therefore, the petitioner
is a workman and finding to the contrary
by the Labour Tribunal is absolutely
perverse, arbitrary and unsustainable in
law.?
824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

12. This Court finds that there is
hardly any challenge worth consideration
to the findings of fact recorded by the
Tribunal qua the petitioner being not a
workman. The findings recorded by the
Tribunal are based on the evidence led by
the employers. No interference under writ
jurisdiction is called for against the said
finding of fact.

13. Counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance upon the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of Dr.
Surendra Kumar Shukla vs. Union of
India and others reported in 1985
UPLBEC, 789 and the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Arkal Govind
Raj Rao vs. Ciba Geigy of India Ltd.,
Bombay reported in 1986 UPLBEC, 38.

14. This Court may record that the
Labour Tribunals are Tribunals with
limited jurisdiction as per the Statute.
Their power to adjudicate the dispute is
confined by the statutory provisions.
Under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and under Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 only
references in respect of workmen can be
adjudicated upon by the Tribunal.

15. Since the Tribunal, in the facts
of the case, has held that Arvind Mehrotra
did not answer the definition of workmen
within the meaning of the word under the
Industrial Disputes Act, it has rightly
come to the conclusion that reference
itself was not competent. It is settled law
that if a Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
examine the dispute, then no order of the
writ Court can confer such jurisdiction.

16. The judgments relied upon by
the petitioner are clearly distinguishable
on facts.

17. In view of the aforesaid, this
Court finds no error in the judgment of
the Tribunal. Writ petition is dismissed.

18. Interim order, if any, stands
discharged.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.13 & 21.05.13

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAY SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14285 of 2013
and
Civil Misc. Correction application no.
158910 of 2013

Hariom

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.K. Singh, Sri S.Q.Khan
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Mahesh Narain Singh
Sri Vijay Bhan Singh, Sri Shailendra Singh

(A)U.P.Z.A.
&
L.R.Act,
Section
333-
Revision-against order granting lease for
fisheries rights-held-not maintainableonly remedy to file application before the
Distt.
Magistrate-while
granting
or
refusing lease for fisheries Rights-S.D.O.
discharge administrative duty-not as
court, can not be termed as decisionrevision-held not maintainable.

Held: Para-9
Under section 333 of the Act the power
has been conferred upon the U.P. Board
of Revenue, Commisisoner, Additional
Commisioner to call for the record of any
suit or proceeding decided by any court
subordinate to him. Here in this case as I
have held that while exercising power to
approve or disapprove the proposal to
grant lease the Sub Divisional Officer