# Suresh Prasad Tripathi v. The Labour Court, Gorakhpur and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 498
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-05-08
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.4800 of 1985
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suresh-prasad-tripathi-v-the-labour-court-gorakhpur-and-others-40951
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

A.G.A.

Criminal
Revision-MaintainabilityRevisionist
neither
complainant-nor
witnesses-but the real daughter of the
deceased-Additional
Session
Judge
rightly set-a-side the judgment and
directed the Trail Court for fresh Trailheld-even
if
the
revision
filed
by
stranger-Revisional Court can suo-moto
exercise
power
of
Revision-direction
issued by Session Judge warrant no
interference.

Held: Para 8

## Text

498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.05.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.4800 of 1985

Suresh Prasad Tripathi
...Petitioner
Versus
The Labour Court, Gorakhpur and others

 Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.K. Tripathi
Sri R.S. Misra
Sri H.S.N. Tripathi
Sri T.N. Tiwari
Sri Sudhanshu Pandey
Sri S.K. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.D. Mandhyan
S.C.

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947-Section
4 k-Industry-whether the U.P. Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Samiti an Industry-Held-
'Yes'.

Held: Para 4

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitionerworkman submitted that the view taken
by the labour Court that U.P. ,Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Samiti constituted under
the provisions U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Samiti
Adhiniyam,
1964
is
not
an
industry, is :not correct. In support of his
contention,
learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the decisions of
this Court reported in 2002 (2) A.W.C.,
1637-Rajya
Krishi
Utpadan
Mandi
Parishad and another Vs. Prescribed
Authority, Industrial Tribunal (V), U.P.,
Meerut
and
another and 1997 (2)
U.P.L.B.E.C., 830 - Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Samiti, Anand Nagar, District Gorakhpur
Vs. Industrial Tribunal (II). U.P. at
Lucknow and another wherein this Court
has held that Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Samiti constituted under the provisions
of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi samiti
Adhiniyam, 1964 is an industry and
therefore the petitioner working with the
employer is covered by the definition of
the workman.
Case law discussed:
2002 (2) AWC-1637
1997 (2) UPLBEC-830

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

1. By means of present writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India,
the
petitioner
Suresh
Prasad
Tripathi has challenged the award of the
Labour Court, Gorakhpur passed in
adjudication case no. 134 of 1982 dated
23rd November, 1984.

2. The following dispute was
referred to by the State Government in
exercise of power under Section 4-K of
the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (In
short 'the Act') to the labour Court for
adjudication.

"Whether the action of the employer
in terminating the services of the
workman Suresh Prasad Tripathi with
effect from 16th July, 1981 is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the
workmen concerned is entitled and with
what details?"

3. The Iabour Court issued notices to
both the workman as well as the
employer. Both the workman and the
employer exchanged their pleadings and
adduced evidence. Before the labour
Court, the employer raised an objection
that since U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Samiti, Barhaj, Deoria is not an industry,
therefore the reference referring the
matter to the labour Court is not covered
2 All] Suresh Prasad Tripathi V. The Labour Court, Gorakhpur and others
499
by the definition of industrial dispute and
the reference should be answered against
the workman. The labour court after
considering the material on record and the
evidence adduced before it has arrived at
the conclusion that employer U.P. Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Samiti is not covered by
the definition of an industry and therefore
Suresh Prasad Tripathi is not a workman,
it therefore decided the preliminary
objection raised by the employer in favour
of the employer and held that the
reference is not maintainable. Against this
award,
the
petitioner-workman
filed
present writ petition.

Heard learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the parties.

4.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner-workman submitted that the
view taken by the labour Court that U.P.
,Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti constituted
under the provisions U.P. Krishi Utpadan
Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam, 1964 is not an
industry, is :not correct. In support of his
contention,
learned
counsel
for the
petitioner relied upon the decisions of this
Court reported in 2002 (2) A.W.C., 1637Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad
and another Vs. Prescribed Authority,
Industrial Tribunal (V), U.P., Meerut
and another and 1997 (2) U.P.L.B.E.C.,
830 - Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti,
Anand Nagar, District Gorakhpur Vs.
Industrial
Tribunal
(II).
U.P.
at
Lucknow and another wherein this
Court has held that Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Samiti constituted under the provisions of
U.P.
Krishi
Utpadan
Mandi
samiti
Adhiniyam, 1964 is an industry and
therefore the petitioner working with the
employer is covered by the definition of
the workman. In view of the legal
preposition laid down by this Court in the
cases, referred to above, this writ petition
deserves to be allowed.

5. In view of what has been stated
above, this writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. The award of the labour Court
dated 23rd November, 1984 is quashed.
The matter is remanded back to the labour
Court with the direction to decide afresh
on merits in accordance with law and in
the light of the observations made in this
judgement within a period of six months'
from the date of presentation of a certified
copy ·of this order before it.
Petition allowed.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.04.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. JAIN, J.

Criminal Revision No. 22 of 2006

Rajua alias Raju

 Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and others Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri I.K. Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Criminal
Revision-MaintainabilityRevisionist
neither
complainant-nor
witnesses-but the real daughter of the
deceased-Additional
Session
Judge
rightly set-a-side the judgment and
directed the Trail Court for fresh Trailheld-even
if
the
revision
filed
by
stranger-Revisional Court can suo-moto
exercise
power
of
Revision-direction
issued by Session Judge warrant no
interference.

Held: Para 8