# The Asst. G.M., Alld. Bank Zonal Office & Anr v. The Presiding Officer Central Govt. Indus. Tribunal & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 860
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-18
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 1006638 of 2014
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-asst-g-m-alld-bank-zonal-office-anr-v-the-presiding-officer-central-govt-51387
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Labour Law - Validity of Undertaking in
Employment Transfer - Petitioner bank
challenged
the
Tribunal's
award
dated
19.06.2014 granting halting allowance to the
respondent-workman,
arguing
that
an
undertaking dated 22.01.2001 waived such
claims - Held, the undertaking, in which the
workman agreed not to claim halting allowance
while working at Gonda post-transfer to
Lucknow, remained valid despite his reversion
from Special Assistant to Clerk-cum-Cashier, as
the reversion did not materially alter the
undertaking's conditions, and the workman
never sought to withdraw it. (Paras 3, 7, 13, 14,
15)

B.
Halting
Allowance
-
Proof
of
Entitlement - Respondent-workman claimed
halting
allowance
for
the
period
from
1 All. The Asst. G.M., Alld. Bank Zonal Office & Anr. Vs. The Presiding Officer
 Central Govt. Indus. Tribunal & Anr.
861
 19.12.2001
to
10.05.2004,
asserting
entitlement post-reversion - Held, the workman
failed to produce any rule or provision before
the Tribunal or the court to establish eligibility
for halting allowance for an extended period,
and oral testimony alone cannot prove the
existence of such a rule, rendering the Tribunal's
reliance on oral evidence erroneous. (Paras 7, 8,
10, 16, 17)

C. Industrial Dispute - Burden of Proof -
The Tribunal allowed the workman's claim based
on uncontroverted oral evidence, citing St. of
U.P. Vs Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava - Held, the
Tribunal erred in accepting oral evidence without
documentary proof of the rule governing halting
allowance, as the bank consistently denied the
existence of such a rule, and the workman's
failure to produce evidence shifted the burden
unmet, making the award arbitrary. (Paras 9,
10, 17)

D. Estoppel by Undertaking - The bank
argued
that
the
workman's
undertaking
estopped him from claiming halting allowance
- Held, the workman's voluntary undertaking
on 22.01.2001, incorporated into the transfer
order dated 30.01.2001, bound him for the
duration
of
his
work
at
Gonda
(until
10.05.2004), and his failure to notify the bank
of any intent to withdraw the undertaking due
to changed circumstances (reversion) upheld
the estoppel, barring his claim. (Paras 7, 11,
14, 15)

E. Judicial Review of Tribunal's Award -
The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's award
as arbitrary for lacking evidence of rules and
ignoring the undertaking - Held, the Tribunal
misdirected itself by relying on oral evidence
without requiring the workman to produce the
applicable rule and by overlooking the binding
nature
of
the
undertaking,
justifying
interference with the award. (Paras 11, 17,
18)

Writ Petition Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

860 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2020 (11) ADJ 233 ordered for recounting
wherein total number of votes polled were
1139 while the counting was done of 1129
votes.

33. The argument raised by the
Returned Candidate as to the pleading of
material facts in the election petition, which
would materially affect the election of
Returned Candidate, finds place in paras 9
and 10 and reliance placed upon various
decisions does not help his cause as it is not
in dispute that 1868 votes were polled and
only 1819 votes were counted leaving 49
votes and the victory margin is of only 2
(two) votes. Neither the decision rendered
in Ram Sewak Yadav (supra) by the
Constitution Bench helps the case of the
petitioner (Returned Candidate) nor the
judgment rendered by the Full Bench in
case of Ram Adhar Singh (supra).

34. In fact, the Full Bench had laid
down the conditions, upon the satisfaction
of which the authority can proceed to grant
relief when the material is produced before
it and there is a ground for believing the
existence of such ground and for doing
complete justice between the parties.

35. In the instant case, total number of
votes polled are 1868 while votes counted
are only 1819. The pleadings are specific as
to the result of the election has been
materially affected by gross failure to
comply with the provisions of Act of 1947
and the rules framed thereunder.

36. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and perusing the
material on record as well as records
summoned by the Court, I find that no case
for interference is made out in the order
dated 16.12.2023 passed by respondent
No.1 directing for recounting of votes as
total number of votes polled are 1868 while
only 1819 votes have been counted.

37. Writ petition fails and is hereby
dismissed. Respondent No.1 is directed to
fix the date for recounting of votes within
one week from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 860
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 1006638 of 2014

The Asst. G.M., Alld. Bank Zonal Office &
Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
The Presiding Officer Central Govt. Indus.
Tribunal & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Gopal Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
akhil Pratap Singh, Anurag Srivastava

A. Labour Law - Validity of Undertaking in
Employment Transfer - Petitioner bank
challenged
the
Tribunal's
award
dated
19.06.2014 granting halting allowance to the
respondent-workman,
arguing
that
an
undertaking dated 22.01.2001 waived such
claims - Held, the undertaking, in which the
workman agreed not to claim halting allowance
while working at Gonda post-transfer to
Lucknow, remained valid despite his reversion
from Special Assistant to Clerk-cum-Cashier, as
the reversion did not materially alter the
undertaking's conditions, and the workman
never sought to withdraw it. (Paras 3, 7, 13, 14,
15)

B.
Halting
Allowance
-
Proof
of
Entitlement - Respondent-workman claimed
halting
allowance
for
the
period
from
1 All. The Asst. G.M., Alld. Bank Zonal Office & Anr. Vs. The Presiding Officer
 Central Govt. Indus. Tribunal & Anr.
861
 19.12.2001
to
10.05.2004,
asserting
entitlement post-reversion - Held, the workman
failed to produce any rule or provision before
the Tribunal or the court to establish eligibility
for halting allowance for an extended period,
and oral testimony alone cannot prove the
existence of such a rule, rendering the Tribunal's
reliance on oral evidence erroneous. (Paras 7, 8,
10, 16, 17)

C. Industrial Dispute - Burden of Proof -
The Tribunal allowed the workman's claim based
on uncontroverted oral evidence, citing St. of
U.P. Vs Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava - Held, the
Tribunal erred in accepting oral evidence without
documentary proof of the rule governing halting
allowance, as the bank consistently denied the
existence of such a rule, and the workman's
failure to produce evidence shifted the burden
unmet, making the award arbitrary. (Paras 9,
10, 17)

D. Estoppel by Undertaking - The bank
argued
that
the
workman's
undertaking
estopped him from claiming halting allowance
- Held, the workman's voluntary undertaking
on 22.01.2001, incorporated into the transfer
order dated 30.01.2001, bound him for the
duration
of
his
work
at
Gonda
(until
10.05.2004), and his failure to notify the bank
of any intent to withdraw the undertaking due
to changed circumstances (reversion) upheld
the estoppel, barring his claim. (Paras 7, 11,
14, 15)

E. Judicial Review of Tribunal's Award -
The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's award
as arbitrary for lacking evidence of rules and
ignoring the undertaking - Held, the Tribunal
misdirected itself by relying on oral evidence
without requiring the workman to produce the
applicable rule and by overlooking the binding
nature
of
the
undertaking,
justifying
interference with the award. (Paras 11, 17,
18)

Writ Petition Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of U.P. Vs Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava,
(2006) 3 SCC 276
(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioners as well
as Sri Anurag Srivastava on behalf of
respondent No.2- workman.

2. This petition has been filed on
behalf of Allahabad Bank Zonal Office,
Hazratganj, Lucknow assailing the validity
of the award dated 19.6.2014 passed by
Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Lucknow (the Tribunal
in short) in ID Case No.27/2006 (The
Secretary,
Allahabad
Bank
Staff
Association Vs. The Assistant Generla
Manager, Allahabad Bank and others).

3. Brief facts of the case are that
respondent No.2 was an employee of the
petitioners and was working on the post of
Special Assistant at Allahabad Bank Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Samiti Branch, Gonda. He
had requested for his transfer to Lucknow
and along with that request had given an
undertaking on 22.1.2001 stating that after
being transferred to Lucknow he shall join
again at Gonda Branch of the Bank and
continued to discharge his duties on the
post of Special Assistant and for that
purpose he shall not claim any Halting
Allowance etc. and shall continue to work
till an alternative arrangement is made and
posting is made on the post of Special
Assistant. In light of the undertaking given
by the petitioner an order of transfer was
passed
on
30.1.2001
by
Manager,
Allahabad Bank transferring the petitioner
from Gonda Branch to Kaiserbagh Branch
at Lucknow and it was provided that he
would continue to discharge the duties of
Special Assistant at Gonda Branch with a
condition that he shall not claim any
allowance including the travel allowance
862 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and halt allowance as agreed by petitioner
No.2.

4. In pursuance of the transfer dated
30.1.2001 the petitioner was relieved from
Kaiserbagh Branch at Lucknow on 1st
February, 2001 and as per his request /
transfer order, he joined back at Gonda
Branch on 2nd February, 2001 and
continued to discharge his duties as such.
During this period certain disciplinary
proceedings were pending against the
petitioner and after giving opportunity of
hearing an order of punishment was
passed
on
19.12.2001
by Assistant
General manager/ disciplinary authority
of the respondent-workman. According to
the said punishment order the respondentworkman was found guilty of the charges
and he was punished with reversion from
the post of Special Assistant and it was
further provided that he shall not be paid
any special allowances. On this reversion
the respondent-workman worked on the
post of Clerk-cum-Cashier till 10th May,
2004 when he was relieved to join at
Kaiserbagh Branch at Lucknow.

5. It is after his joining at
Kaiserbagh Branch at Lucknow that the
respondent-workman, namely Ram Lal
through
workmen'
union
raised
an
industrial
dispute
claiming
Halting
Allowance for the period he had worked
in Gonda Branch on the post of Clerkcum-Cashier in pursuance to his transfer
order dated 20.12.2001 was liable to be
paid to him.

6. The question which was referred
for adjudication to the Tribunal was
"Whether the claim of Sri Ram Lal for
payment of halting allowance for the
period from 19.12.2001 to 10.5.2004 from
the management of Allahabad bank is just
and legal? If not, wheat relief is the
disputant concerned entitled to ?"

7. The Tribunal issued notices to the
petitioner who had put in appearance and
filed their objections to the claim made by
the respondent-workman and they firstly
stated that the respondent-workman had
himself given an undertaking that in case
he is allowed to join at Lucknow he shall
continue to discharge his duties on the post
of Special Assistant at Gonda Branch till
such time as Special Assistant joins at
Gonda. He further undertook that during
such period as he discharges his duties at
Gonda he shall not claim any allowance
including the Halting Allowance. The
petitioner had submitted that once an
undertaking was given then the workman is
estopped from claiming the same. It was
further submitted that even otherwise
Halting Allowance is granted to the
employees /staff who are sent out of station
for a short duration in connection with
official work of the Bank so as to
compensate the employee for the expenses
incurred by them during the course of such
stay. Such an allowance was never meant to
be granted for an indefinite period of time
as claimed by the workman. It was further
stated that there is no provision either in the
Rules or any where else for making
payment of Halting Allowance as claimed
by the workman and in absence of any
rules in this regard the workman would not
be entitled to the Halting Allowance as
claimed by him.

8. The respondent-workman, on the
other hand, has submitted that after his
joining at Gonda he was inflicted with the
punishment by means of order dated
14.12.2001 whereby he was reverted from
the post of Special Assistant to the post of
Clerk cum Cashier. He has
further
1 All. The Asst. G.M., Alld. Bank Zonal Office & Anr. Vs. The Presiding Officer
 Central Govt. Indus. Tribunal & Anr.
863
submitted that once an order of reversion
came into operation he was not discharging
his
duties
as
Special Assistant
and
accordingly the undertaking given by him
on 22.1.2001 ceased to operate on his
reversion to the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier
and consequently he became entitled for
the Halting Allowance.

9. Learned Central Government
Industrial cum Labour Court, Lucknow while
adjudicating the said case has allowed the
claim of the workman stating that the
petitioner could not prove that the Halting
Allowance is only paid where the staff is sent
for a short duration with regard to official
work and the same can also not be
demonstrate from the bipartite settlement. In
absence of nay pleadings or evidence led by
the petitioner, the Tribunal relied upon the
version of the workman who had submitted
that such Halting Allowance is, in fact,
payable and also relied upon the judgment of
Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs.
Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava and others,
(2006) 3 SCC 276 by stating that if the
statement of witnesses is not controverted the
Halting Allowance would be deemed to be
admitted.

10. Merely on account of the fact that
the Management could not show that there
is any provision for Halting Allowance
while on the other hand the view contrary
to the same was proved by the workman as
several of his witnesses who had orally
submitted that the said Halting Allowance
is, in fact, payable, a finding in this regard
was recorded in favour of the respondent
workman and directed the petitioner to pay
the Halting Allowance to the petitioner
from 19.12.2001 to 10.5.2004.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner
while assailing the impugned award passed
by the Tribunal has submitted that once the
undertaking had been given by the
workman that he is ready and willing to
work at Gonda Branch of the Bank till such
time as the Bank deploys a suitable person
to work on the post of Special Assistant he
shall not claim any Halting Allowance
would bind him for the duration he worked
at Gonda branch. He submits that the
undertaking was never withdrawn and
continued in force till such time he worked
at Gonda. He was relieved on 10.5.2004
from Gonda to join at Kaiserbagh Branch at
Lucknow. He has further submitted that the
rules providing for Halting Allowance
cannot be proved by mere oral statement of
the workman but the same had to be proved
by evidence and producing the rules in this
regard. As there was no such provision and
existence of such a rule had been denied by
the petitioner, the onus lay upon the
workman to prove and produce before the
Tribunal the said rule and the same could
not have been proved only by oral
evidence. He has further submitted that in
this regard the Tribunal has misdirected
itself and submitted that the award requires
interference. In the counter affidavit filed
by the workman before this Court also no
such rules have been annexed which may
demonstrate that any staff or workman is
entitled to halting allowance even if he is
posted for a long duration out of station.

12. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.

13.

The
only
question
for
determination
is
as
to
whether
the
undertaking given by the workman was
valid even after passing of the order for
reversion. It is noticed that the workman
had given an undertaking to the effect that
he shall not claim any allowance including
Halting Allowance during the period he
864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
worked at Gonda or till such time as
Special Assistant
is
posted.
In
the
meanwhile, the workman was reverted but
the question has to be considered as to
whether the order of reversion has
materially altered the undertaking given by
the petitioner on 22.1.2001.

14. This Court is of the considered
opinion that the undertaking given by the
workman was not materially altered even if
he was reverted from the post of Special
Assistant to the post of Clerk cum Cashier.
It has been informed that the petitioner was
transferred on his own volition from Gonda
to Lucknow and it is in these circumstance
that he had agreed that in case he is
transferred to Lucknow he shall continue to
discharge his duties of Special Assistant at
Gonda till such time as alternate Special
Assistant is posted at Gonda. He had
voluntarily stated that during the time he is
posted at Gonda, he shall not claim any
allowance including Halting Allowance.
His claim was duly incorporated in the
order issued on 31.1.2001. The workman
duly complied with the order dated
30.1.2001
and
joined
at
Kaiserbagh
Branch, Lucknow on 1.2.2001 and also
joined back at Lucknow on 2.2.2001 and
continued working there till 10.5.2004
when he was relieved from Gonda. During
this
period
he
never
informed
the
management i.e. the Bank that there has
been
any
material
alteration
in
the
circumstance and it was necessary to
withdraw the undertaking dated 22.1.2001.

15. This Court is of the considered
opinion that the undertaking given on
22.1.2001 was good and valid for the
period of his working at Gonda despite his
transfer to Lucknow by means of order
dated 30.1.2001. In case, there was any
alteration in the circumstances as per the
workman, he should have informed the
management his intention to withdraw his
undertaking and once it was done it was
open for the petitioner/management to have
passed appropriate orders in these changed
circumstance specially with regard to the
undertaking dated 22.1.2001 and necessary
orders would have been passed either
relieving the workman to join at Lucknow
and in these circumstance if he would have
continued at Gonda he could have claimed
special allowances as per the rules and
accordingly this aspect of the matter is
decided in favour of the petitioner.

16. The other question is with regard
to existence of rules in compliance of
which the relief was granted to the
workman while allowing the claim petition.
A perusal of the award clearly indicates that
the rules benefit of which has been claimed
by the workman has been seriously
disputed by the petitioner. It is submitted
that Halting Allowance is merely a
compensatory allowance given to the staff
who are sent for tours or official visits for a
short period and it is not a fund which is
payable for a long period of time or
indefinitely to a person who is working
other
than
his
place
of
posting.
Accordingly, even the workman could not
place such a rules on record either before
the Tribunal or before this Court in the
counter
affidavit
filed
by
him
demonstrating admissibility of Halting
Allowance for a period of more than three
years continuously.

17. There is no doubt that merely on
the basis of oral testimony the rule was
sought to be proved while it was the
consistent claim of the management that
such a rule does not exist. A provision of
rule or law can only be proved by
producing the said rule or law before the
1 All. Shyam Kishore & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
865
authority and no amount of oral evidence
can prove the existence of the same and
accordingly the impugned order is arbitrary
and requires interference. Merely holding
existence of rules without producing the
same nor the same having been brought on
record, the Tribunal has erred in allowing
the claim filed by the workman.

18. On both these counts, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the award
dated 19th June, 2014 requires interference
and is accordingly set aside.

19. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 865
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 3000109 of 2002

Shyam Kishore & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Anita Misra, Avadhesh Kumar, Lalta Prasad Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Avadhesh Mishra

A. Civil Law - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Section
12-A
Application
by
Subsequent
Purchasers - Petitioners challenged the
orders dated 03.06.1992 and 30.09.2002,
which allowed an application under Section
12-A(d)
by
subsequent
purchasers
(respondents no. 4 to 6) to exclude purchased
plots from surplus land declaration - Held,
Section 12-A explicitly grants the right to
choose which land to retain within the ceiling
limit solely to the recorded tenure holder, not
subsequent
purchasers,
rendering
the
application by respondents no. 4 to 6
impermissible and the orders allowing it
illegal. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 12)

B. Statutory Interpretation of Section 12A - Respondents no. 4 to 6, who purchased
plots from the tenure holder, sought exclusion
of those plots via a Section 12-A(d) application
- Held, the legislative intent in Section 12-A
restricts the right to indicate the choice of land
to be retained to the tenure holder, and no
provision allows subsequent purchasers to
exercise this right, making the Prescribed
Authority's acceptance of their application
contrary to the statute. (Paras 8, 9, 12)

C. Alternative Remedy Under Section
11(2) - Petitioners argued that subsequent
purchasers
could
only
seek
exclusion
of
purchased land by filing objections under
Section 11(2) - Held, the court agreed that
subsequent purchasers, if seeking exclusion of
their purchased land from surplus declaration,
must file objections under Section 11(2), which
the Prescribed Authority is duty-bound to
consider, and respondents no. 4 to 6's failure to
do so invalidated their Section 12-A application.
(Paras 10, 11, 12)

D.
Procedural
Fairness
in
Ceiling
Proceedings - Petitioners contended that the
Prescribed Authority allowed the Section 12-A
application without giving the recorded tenure
holder an opportunity to be heard - Held, while
the matter was remanded earlier by the court
(Writ Petition No. 3473 of 1980) to ensure a
hearing, the fundamental illegality of allowing a
Section 12-A application by non-tenure holders
rendered the orders dated 03.06.1992 and
30.09.2002 arbitrary and unsustainable. (Paras
4, 5, 6, 12)

E. Judicial Review of Ceiling Orders - The
Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority
upheld the exclusion of plots based on the
subsequent purchasers' application - Held, both
authorities erred in law by allowing an
application
under
Section
12-A(d)
by
respondents no. 4 to 6, who lacked the
statutory right to file such an application,
necessitating the quashing of the impugned