# Shri Shanti Swaroop Krishi Inter College, Hapur & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 1128
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-17
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 25136 of 2016
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shri-shanti-swaroop-krishi-inter-college-hapur-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47351
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Industrial Disputes Act
(28
of
1947)
-
Section
6H(1)
-
Jurisdiction of Labour Court in respect of
class IV employee working in aided
institution - Held - Special Act prevail
over a General Act - U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 and the Uttar
Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate
Colleges
(Payment
of
Salaries
of
Teachers and Other employees) Act,
1971 are a complete code & being
special legislations covering a specific
field of law, ousted jurisdiction of the
Labour Court, in matters covered by the
former enactment.

Private respondent appointed as Class IV
employee in the petitioner Institution -
conditions of service governed exclusively by
provisions of Act, 1921 and Act of 1971- Held
- Labour court exceeded its jurisdiction by
passing
award
and
the
consequential
proceedings taken out under Section 6H(1) -
Award set aside

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :

## Text

1128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sonebhadra, and shall not seek any
unnecessary adjournment.

IV. If necessary, the learned
adjudicating
authority/District
Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), Sonebhadra,
shall conduct the proceedings on day to day
basis to ensure that the above stipulated
timeline of three months is strictly adhered
to.

V. The amount already deposited
by the petitioner shall remain subject to the
final
adjudication
by
the
learned
adjudicating
authority/District
Magistrate/Collector (Stamps), Sonebhadra
in accordance with the above directions.

18. Before parting, this Court deems it
appropriate to highlight another important
issue. The law laid down by this Court in
Ram Khelawan (supra) is now well
settled. This Court in several cases had
noticed the stamp authorities had been
erring by relying an ex parte inspection
reports which are to be used solely for the
purposes of initiation of proceedings under
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The authorities
are not any the wiser today. This Court also
comes to the conclusion independently that
the same error is being repeated by the
authorities in several cases including the
instant case. This aspect needs to be
redressed.

19. The Principal Secretary, Stamp
and Registration, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow, shall ensure that appropriate
training
programmes
and
workshops/seminars for the adjudicating
authorities as well as appellate authorities
are regularly held to enable them to acquire
knowledge of the laws including the body
of judicial precedents which govern the
interpretation of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899.
The
distilled
wisdom
of
the
judgements handed down by constitutional
courts should constantly guide the actions
of the revenue authorities.

20. Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall
communicate this order to the Principal
Secretary,
Stamp
and
Registration,
Government of U.P., Lucknow, along with
his suggestions.

21. The Principal Secretary, Stamp
and Registration, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow is expected to take appropriate
measures in this regard within a period of
four months from today.

22. Such regular workshops will help
the authorities to remain abreast of the laws
and empower them to faithfully implement
the intendment of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899 and protect the interests of the
Revenue while respecting the rights of
common citizens. It will also prevent
unnecessary litigation.

23. The writ petition is allowed to the
extent indicated above.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1128
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C No. 25136 of 2016

Shri Shanti Swaroop Krishi Inter College,
Hapur & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
9 All Shri Shanti Swaroop Krishi Inter College, Hapur & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1129
Sri Shesh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Akshat Sinha, Saroj Kumar
Yadav, Sri Yogesh Kumar Sinha

Civil Law - U.P. Industrial Disputes Act
(28
of
1947)
-
Section
6H(1)
-
Jurisdiction of Labour Court in respect of
class IV employee working in aided
institution - Held - Special Act prevail
over a General Act - U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 and the Uttar
Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate
Colleges
(Payment
of
Salaries
of
Teachers and Other employees) Act,
1971 are a complete code & being
special legislations covering a specific
field of law, ousted jurisdiction of the
Labour Court, in matters covered by the
former enactment.

Private respondent appointed as Class IV
employee in the petitioner Institution -
conditions of service governed exclusively by
provisions of Act, 1921 and Act of 1971- Held
- Labour court exceeded its jurisdiction by
passing
award
and
the
consequential
proceedings taken out under Section 6H(1) -
Award set aside

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :

1. Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. Vs Addl.
Labour Commissioner & ors. 2007 (11)SCC 756

2. Sikta Mahoogarh Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd.
Vs Prescribed Authority (2014)4UPLBEC 3246

3. Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. & ors. Vs The
Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh &
ors. 1969(2)SCC43

4. Sikta Mahoogarh Sadhan Sahkari Samiti
Limited Vs Prescribed Authority under the
Payement of Wages Act, 1936 & ors. (2014)
4UPLBEC 3246

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. The petitioner has assailed the
award passed by the Lok Adalat in this writ
petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
Shri Shesh Kumar Srivastava submits that
the award is beyond jurisdiction. The Utter
Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act is not
applicable to the facts of this case. He relies
on the law laid down by the Supreme Court
in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. Vs.
Addl. Labour Commissioner and others1,
and the judgment of this Court rendered in
Sikta Mahoogarh Sadhan Sahkari Samiti
Ltd. Vs. Prescribed Authority under the
Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and others2.

3. Shri Saroj Kumar Yadav, learned
counsel for the respondent contends that
the respondent no.5 is a workman within
the meaning of Uttar Pradesh Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.

4. The facts material to the
adjudication of this case lie in a narrow
compass and are undisputed.

5. The respondent no. 5 was
appointed as Class IV employee in the
petitioner
Institution.
The
petitioner
Institution is an intermediate college which
is under the grant-in-aid of the Government
of U.P. The conditions of service and
payment of salary of all employees and
staff of the Institution including the
petitioner are governed and regulated by
the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921
as well as the Uttar Pradesh High Schools
and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of
Salaries of Teachers and Other employees)
Act, 1971.

6. The aforesaid enactments are a
complete code. The enactments are special
legislations covering a specific field of law.
1130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. I see merit in the contention of Shri
Shesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel
for the petitioners that the labour court
exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining the
industrial
dispute
even
though
its
jurisdiction was ousted by the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the
Uttar
Pradesh
High
Schools
and
Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries
of Teachers and Other employees) Act,
1971.

8. The ouster of jurisdiction of the
labour court and the Uttar Pradesh
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in matters
governed
by
special
laws
fell
for
consideration in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari
Bank (supra).

9. The issue in Ghaziabad Zila
Sahkari Bank (supra) was whether the U.P.
Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, being a
special enactment ousted the jurisdiction of
Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
in
matters
covered
by
the
former
enactment. Invoking the well settled
principles of interpretation of statues which
contemplate that a special Act shall prevail
over a general Act was held:

"61. The general legal principle
in interpretation of statutes is that "the
general Act should lead to the special Act".
Upon this general principle of law, the
intention of the U.P. Legislature is clear,
that the special enactment U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1965 alone should apply in
the matter of employment by cooperative
societies to the exclusion of all other labour
laws. It is a complete code in itself as
regards
employment
in
cooperative
societies and its machinery and provisions.
The general Act, the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 as a whole has and can
have no applicability and stands excluded
after
the
enforcement
of
the
U.P.
Cooperative Societies Act. This is also
clear from necessary implication that the
legislature could not have intended head-on
conflict and collision between authorities
under different Acts."

10. The narrative in Ghaziabad Zila
Sahkari Bank (supra) placed reliance on
the judgment rendered in Co-operative
Central Bank Ltd. and others Vs. The
Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra
Pradesh and others3, wherein it was
observed:

"7. Applying these tests, we have
no doubt at all that the dispute covered by
the first issue referred to the Industrial
Tribunal in the present cases could not
possibly be referred for decision to the
Registrar under Section 61 of the Act. The
dispute related to alteration of a number of
conditions of service of the workmen
which relief could only be granted by an
Industrial
Tribunal
dealing
with
an
industrial dispute. The Registrar, it is clear
from the provisions of the Act, could not
possibly have granted the reliefs claimed
under this issue because of the limitations
placed on his powers in the Act itself. It is
true that Section 61 by itself does not
contain any clear indication that the
Registrar cannot entertain a dispute relating
to alteration of conditions of service of the
employees of a registered society; but the
meaning given to the expression "touching
the business of the society", in our opinion,
makes it very doubtful whether a dispute in
respect of alteration of conditions of
service can be held to be covered by this
expression. Since the word "business" is
equated
with
the
actual
trading
or
commercial or other similar business
activity of the society, and since it has been
held that it would be difficult to subscribe
9 All Shri Shanti Swaroop Krishi Inter College, Hapur & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1131
to the proposition that whatever the society
does or is necessarily required to do for the
purpose of carrying out its objects, such as
laying down the conditions of service of its
employees, can be said to be a part of its
business, it would appear that a dispute
relating to conditions of service of the
workmen employed by the society cannot
be held to be a dispute touching the
business of the society. Further, the
position is clarified by the provisions of
sub-section (4) of Section 62 of the Act
which limit the power to be exercised by
the Registrar, when dealing with a dispute
referred to him under Section 61, by a
mandate that he shall decide the dispute in
accordance with the provisions of the Act
and the Rules and bye-laws. On the face of
it, the provisions of the Act, the rules and
the bye-laws could not possibly permit the
Registrar to change conditions of service of
the workmen employed by the society. For
the purpose of bringing facts to our notice
in the present appeals, the rules framed by
the Andhra Pradesh Government under the
Act, and the bye-laws of one of the
appellant Banks have been placed on the
Paper-books of the appeals before us. It
appears from them that the conditions of
service of the employees of the Bank have
all been laid down by framing special byelaws. Most of the conditions of service,
which the workmen want to be altered to
their benefit, have thus been laid down by
the by-laws, so that any alteration in those
conditions of service will necessarily
require a change in the bye-laws. Such a
change could not possibly be directed by
the Registrar when, under Section 62(4) of
the Act, he is specifically required to
decide the dispute referred to him in
accordance with the provisions of the byelaws. It may also be noticed that a dispute
referred to the Registrar under Section 61
of the Act can even be transferred for
disposal to a person who may have been
invested by the Government with powers in
that behalf, or may be referred for disposal
to an arbitrator by the Registrar. Such
person or arbitrator, when deciding the
dispute, will also be governed by the
mandate in Section 62(4) of the Act, so that
he will also be bound to reject the claims of
the workmen which is nothing else than a
request for alteration of conditions of
service contained in the bye-laws. It is thus
clear that, in respect of the dispute relating
to alteration of various conditions of
service, the Registrar or other person
dealing with it under Section 62 of the Act
is not competent to grant the relief claimed
by the workmen at all. On the principle laid
down by this Court in the case of Deccan
Merchants
Cooperative
Bank
Ltd., therefore, it must be held that this
dispute is not a dispute covered by the
provisions of Section 61 of the Act. Such a
dispute is not contemplated to be dealt with
under Section 62 of the Act and must,
therefore, be held to be outside the scope of
Section 61"

11. Elaborating further exclusion of
the jurisdiction of a general Act in matters
covered by the special Act in Ghaziabad
Zila Sahkari Bank (supra), it was
concluded:

"63. Also if we refer to the
general
principles
of
statutory
interpretation as discussed by G.P. Singh,
in his treatise on Principles of Statutory
Interpretation, we can observe that, a prior
general Act may be affected by a
subsequent particular or special Act if the
subject-matter of the particular Act prior to
its enforcement was being governed by the
general provisions of the earlier Act. In
such a case the operation of the particular
Act may have the effect of partially
1132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
repealing the general Act, or curtailing its
operation, or adding conditions to its
operation for the particular cases. The
distinction may be important at times for
determining the applicability of those
provisions of the General Clauses Act,
1897, (the Interpretation Act, 1889 of UK,
now the Interpretation Act, 1978) which
apply only in case of repeals.

64. A general Act's operation
may be curtailed by a later special Act even
if the general Act will be more readily
inferred when the later special Act also
contains
an
overriding
non
obstante
provision. Section 446(1) of the Companies
Act, 1956 (Act 1 of 1956) provides that
when the winding-up order is passed or the
Official Liquidator is appointed as a
provisional liquidator, no suit or other legal
proceeding shall be commenced, or if
pending at the date of winding-up order
shall be proceeded with against the
company except by leave of the court.
Under Section 446(2), the Company
Court, notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law for the time being in
force is given jurisdiction to entertain any
suit, proceeding or claim by or against the
company and decide any question of
priorities or any other question whatsoever,
whether of law or fact, which may relate to
or arise in the course of the winding-up.
The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956
(Act 31 of 1956) constituted a tribunal and
Section 15 of the Act enabled Life
Insurance Corporation to file a case before
the tribunal for recovery of various
amounts from the erstwhile Life Insurance
Companies in certain respects. Section 41
of the LIC Act conferred exclusive
jurisdiction on the tribunal in these matters.
On examination of these Acts, it was held
[Damji Valji Shah v. LIC of India, AIR
1966
SC
135]
that
the
provisions
conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the
tribunal being provisions of the special Act
i.e. the LIC Act prevailed over the
aforesaid provisions of the general Act viz.
the Companies Act which is an Act relating
to companies in general and, therefore, the
tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain and
proceed with a claim of Life Insurance
Corporation against a former insurer which
had been ordered to be wound up by the
Company Court. This case [Damji Valji
Shah v. LIC of India, AIR 1966 SC 135]
was followed [(2000) 4 SCC 406] in giving
to the provisions of the Recovery of Debts
Due to Banks and Financial Institutions
Act, 1993 (the RDB Act) overriding effect
over the provisions of the Companies Act,
1956. The RDB Act constitutes a tribunal
and by Sections 17 and 18 confers upon the
tribunal exclusive jurisdiction to entertain
and decide applications from the banks and
financial institutions for recovery of debts
(defined to mean any liability which is
claimed as due). The Act also lays down
the procedure for recovery of the debt as
per the certificate issued by the tribunal.
The provisions of the RDB Act, which is a
special Act, were held [(2000) 4 SCC 406]
to prevail over Sections 442, 446, 537 and
other sections of the Companies Act which
is a general Act, more so because Section
34 of the RDB Act gives overriding effect
to that Act by providing that the provisions
of
this
Act
shall
have
effect
notwithstanding
anything
inconsistent
therewith contained in any other law for the
time being in force.

65. We are therefore of the view
that the Assistant Labour Commissioner's
(ALC) jurisdiction was wrongly invoked
and his order dated 15-3-2003 under
Section 6-H, U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 is without jurisdiction and hence null
and void and it can be observed that, in
9 All C/M Purvanchal Prachya Ved Vidyaly, Deoria Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1133
view of the said general legal principle, it is
immaterial whether or not the Government
has enforced Section 135 (U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act) because, in any case the said
provision (Section 135) had been included
in the Act only by way of clarification and
abundant caution."

12. Similarly, the jurisdiction of the
prescribed authority under the Payment of
Wages Act, 1936, to entertain the claims of
an employee of the Co-operative Society
who is governed by the U.P. Co-operative
Societies Act, 1965, was ousted in Sikta
Mahoogarh
Sadhan
Sahkari
Samiti
Limited Vs. Prescribed Authority under
the Payement of Wages Act, 1936 and
others4, in view of the law laid down in
Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank (supra), this
Court opined as under:

"19. Be that as it may, I am
clearly of the opinion that issue in question
stands covered by judgment of Apex Court
in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank (supra)
and therefore, since no Labour Laws would
be applicable in respect to service dispute
of an employee and cooperative society
inter se, Prescribed Authority, under Act,
1936, had no jurisdiction to entertain an
application under Section 15 and therefore,
impugned orders are patently illegal and
without jurisdiction."

13. In this case the services and rights
of the respondent no. 5 are governed
exclusively by the provisions of U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the
Uttar
Pradesh
High
Schools
and
Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries
of Teachers and Other employees) Act,
1971.
Both
the
enactments
are
comprehensive in nature and squarely
cover the dispute before the labour court.
The law laid down in Ghaziabad Zila
Sahkari Bank (supra) as well as Sikta
Mahoogarh (supra) will be squarely
applicable to the facts to this case. The
jurisdiction of the labour court and the
Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
in the facts of this case was ousted by
virtue of the operation of the UP
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the
Uttar
Pradesh
High
Schools
and
Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries
of Teachers and Other employees) Act,
1971.

14. In wake of the preceding
discussion, the labour court exceeded its
jurisdiction by passing the impugned award
dated
27.04.2015.
The
award
dated
27.04.2015
and
the
consequential
proceedings taken out under Section 6H(1)
of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, are liable to be set aside and are
set aside.

15. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1133
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ C No. 27118 of 2018

C/M, Purvanchal Prachya Ved Vidyaly,
Deoria ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Uma Nath Pandey, Sri Ashok Kumar
Tripathi (Now Sri Ashok Tripathi)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.