# U.P.S.R.T.C v. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Fzd. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1957
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-28
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 12689 of 2017
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-s-r-t-c-v-presiding-officer-labour-court-fzd-anr-54553
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Industrial Disputes Act,1947Section
33(c)-The
Petitioner(UP
road
transport corporation) preferred the writ
petition challenging the order of Labour
Court-Respondent no. 2 was a conductor
1958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in the corporation, he was not given the
overtime amounting to Rs. 54,965/-the
petitioner did not file objections stating
that
all
the
documents
had
been
destroyed while respondent no. 2 had filed
all
the
documents-The
labour
court
allowed the claim-the petitioner also
challenged the order for review but was
rejected-The court held that the claim is
for small sum of Rs. 54,965/- for such a
small amount the petitioner is litigating
for the last six years having no litigation
policy-The court is of the opinion that it is
mandatory for all the corporations, which
are running on commercial basis to have a
litigation policy-The awarded amount may
be paid to the respondent no.2/workman
within period of six weeks.(Para 1 to 13)

The writ petition is dismissed. .(E-6)

## Text

3 All. U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Fzd. & Anr.
1957
Magistrate,
Gonda,
after
investigating the matter, recommended to
release the seized cash. However, from
perusal of the impugned order and the
counter affidavit, there is not a whisper of
word
regarding
the
aforesaid
recommendation of the Station Officer,
Police Station Dhanepur, Gonda. In the
counter affidavit, the respondents have
admitted the fact that the petitioners are
doing money transfer service through net
banking as a sub-agent under the authority
given by the Reserve Bank of India. There
is also not denial in the counter affidavit
about the fact that the petitioners were not
carrying
Net
Banking
business. The
petitioners' case right from the beginning is
that the cash amounting to Rs.6,60,000/- ,
which was seized, was to be disbursed to
36 persons and list of such persons has
been enclosed in Annexure No.4 to the writ
petition. This has also not been denied by
the respondents in the counter affidavit.

(19) Apart from the above
consideration, what has also engaged the
attention of this Court is with regard to the
plea put forth on behalf of the petitioners
regarding the need to release the seized
amount to enable the petitioners to pay the
due amount as per the statutory rules. The
petitioners in that regard has relied
Annexure No.4 also, which is a list of 36
persons and it indicates that the amount
payable towards to such persons, in all
amounting to Rs.7,57,340.07. Furthermore,
the respondents have not placed any
document(s) or evidence, which suggest
that the seized cash was to be used in the
process of panchayat election illegally.

(20) Since we have indicated that
the seizure of the cash amounting to
Rs.6,60,200/- has been done without due
compliance of law, interest of justice would
be suffice, if respondents No.3-Assistant
District Election Officer, District Election
Office (Panchayat and Nagriya Nikay),
Gonda is directed to release the seized cash
to the petitioners.

(21) In terms of the above, the
order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the
respondent no.3 is hereby quashed. We
direct that the respondents shall release the
seized amount for a sum of Rs.6,60,200/- to
the petitioners. However, liberty is reserved
to respondent No.3 thereafter to initiate
action afresh in accordance with law, if
they so desire.

(22) The instant writ petition is
allowed to the above extent with no order
as to costs.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1957
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 12689 of 2017

U.P.S.R.T.C. ...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer Labour Court, Fzd. & Anr.
 ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
C.S.C., Birendra Prasad Singh

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Industrial Disputes Act,1947Section
33(c)-The
Petitioner(UP
road
transport corporation) preferred the writ
petition challenging the order of Labour
Court-Respondent no. 2 was a conductor
1958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in the corporation, he was not given the
overtime amounting to Rs. 54,965/-the
petitioner did not file objections stating
that
all
the
documents
had
been
destroyed while respondent no. 2 had filed
all
the
documents-The
labour
court
allowed the claim-the petitioner also
challenged the order for review but was
rejected-The court held that the claim is
for small sum of Rs. 54,965/- for such a
small amount the petitioner is litigating
for the last six years having no litigation
policy-The court is of the opinion that it is
mandatory for all the corporations, which
are running on commercial basis to have a
litigation policy-The awarded amount may
be paid to the respondent no.2/workman
within period of six weeks.(Para 1 to 13)

The writ petition is dismissed. .(E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Shri Akhilesh Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner,
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
State/respondent no. 1, Shri Birendra
Prasad
Singh,
learned
counsel
for
respondent no. 4 and perused the material
available on record.

2. The U.P. Road Transport
Corporation has preferred the present writ
petition assailing the validity of the order
passed
by
the
Labour
Court
dated
04.05.2016.

3. The brief facts of the case are
that the respondent no.2 was a Conductor
in
the
petitioner's
corporation
and
superannuated in the year 2006. He had
filed a claim before the Labour Court
stating that from July, 2003 to December,
2004, he was not given the overtime
amounting to Rs. 54,965/-. In the said
claim, it was stated that till July, 2003
whenever he had worked for overtime, he
was granted the said allowance but for his
services between July, 2003 to December,
2004 despite having worked and was
entitled to be paid overtime the respondents
denied the payment and accordingly,
moved an application under Section 33 (c)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
claiming the admissible dues from the
petitioner. The petitioner had appeared
before the Labour Court but did not file any
objections to the claim. During the
proceedings, the Labour Court had directed
the petitioner to produce the record
pertaining to the service rendered by the
workman/respondent no. 2 but despite the
orders passed, no such documents were
filed by the petitioner and otherwise it was
submitted that all the documents had been
destroyed.

4. The workman/respondent no. 2
on the other hand, had filed all the
documents and registers demonstrating that
from July, 2003 to December, 2004, he had
worked for overtime and he was entitled for
the same and considering that there was no
contrary evidence or material filed by the
petitioner, the Labour Court allowed the
claim and directed the petitioner to pay an
amount of Rs.54,965/- as the overtime
admissible to the employee. The petitioner
while assailing the order of the award
submits that the said order is arbitrary and
inasmuch as, the claim of workman does
not
fall
within
the
circular
dated
22.04.2003 and only when the bus had run
for more than 350 kilometers in a day and
more
than
700
kilometers
for
two
consecutive days, the overtime is allowed.
It is stated that for two days the bus in
which he was performing his duties had run
for 616 kilometers. Apart from this fact,
there is no other material to contest the
claim of the employee. No other arguments
were raised for assailing the said order.
3 All. U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Fzd. & Anr.
1959
5. I have considered the arguments
and perused the record.

6. From the impugned award, it is
clear that the workman had filed all the
documents pertaining to his employment
from July, 2003 to December, 2004
indicating that he was entitled for to be
paid overtime as per the circular of the
petitioner. Despite contesting the said case
and appearing before Labour Court, the
petitioner
did
not
file
any
written
submissions or any evidence to contest the
claim of the workman.

7.

It
is
in
the
aforesaid
circumstances that after considering the
aforesaid facts, the Labour Court has
allowed the claim holding that the
workman was entitled for the overtime
claimed by him. Even if for a moment, the
objections of the petitioner are considered,
there was no material to indicate that for
the entire period from July, 2003 to
December, 2004 the bus in which he was
performing the duties had not run for more
than 350 kilometer in a single day and 700
kilometers for two consecutive days as no
document or register was filed in support of
their contention. There is no material even
before this Court to hold that the findings
recorded by the Labour Court are perverse
and deserves interference by this Court in
exercise of power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

8. In light of the above, the
arguments raised by the petitioner are
rejected.

9.
 The
petitioner
has
also
challenged the order dated 24.03.2017
where the application preferred by the
petitioner for review of the award dated
04.05.2016 was rejected. The said review
was rejected on the ground that the Labour
Court does not have any power of review
nor the petitioner could indicate any such
prayer existing in the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. Even before this Court the
petitioner could not indicate that the
Industrial Tribunal is vested with the power
of review and accordingly as per the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of
Dr.
Smt.
Kuntesh
Gupta
Vs.
Management
of
Hindu
Kanya
Mahavidyalaya,
Sitapur
and
others
reported in 1987 (4) SCC 525 has held that
unless the statutory authority is vested with
the power of review, it cannot exercise the
said power and consequently, this Court
does not find any infirmity with the order
dated 24.03.2017 rejecting the review of
the petitioner.

10. The other facts, which have
drawn the attention of this Court that the
claim in the present case is for a paltry sum
of Rs.54,965/-. For such a small amount,
the petitioner is litigating before this Court
for the last six years. It is in the aforesaid
circumstances that the petitioner was asked
to respond as to whether there is any
litigation policy in the corporation. Learned
counsel for petitioner has fairly submitted
that there is no litigation policy.

11. It is in the aforesaid
circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that it is mandatory for
all the corporations, which are running on
commercial basis to have a litigation
policy, which should clearly take into
account the cost of litigation, and the
matters which should be contested. The
matters/cases, where the consequences or
pecuniary liability is large then only should
writ petition be filed against the statutory
tribunals/authorities, they should refrain
from challenging the routine orders or
1960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
where
the
sum
involved
is
small/insignificant,
inasmuch
as,
the
amount involved in litigation sometimes far
exceeds, then the benefit, for which the
petition has been filed by the corporation.

12. In light of the above, the writ
petition is dismissed. Interim order, granted
earlier, is hereby discharged.

13. The awarded amount may be
paid to the workman/ respondent no. 2
expeditiously say within a period of six
weeks from today.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1960
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

Writ -C No. 12727 of 2012

M/s
Uttranchal
Automobile
(P)Ltd.,
Meerut ...Petitioner
Versus
Chief Controlling Revenue Auth. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.K. Gupta, Sri Sheetla Sahai

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-
Uttar
Pradesh
Stamp
(Valuation of Property)Rules,1997-Rule
7(3)©
The
petitioner
challenged
additional
stamp
duty
levied
by
authorities, who treated their land as nonagricultural-the petitioner claimed the
land was agricultural at the time of sale,
with no structures or activities besides
agriculture-the
authorities
failed
to
conduct mandatory spot verification as
per rule 7(3)©-comparable sales used by
the authorities were not applicable as
they referred to non-agricultural land
nearer to highway-Held, valuation should
rely
on
adequate
material,
not
assumptions or surmises-Reiterated the
necessity of spot inspection and evidence
of the land's potential use at the time of
sale-The court quashed the orders for
additional
stamp
duty,
ruling
them
erroneous and unsupported by evidenceDirected
authorities
to
refund
any
deposited amount with 4% interest within
six weeks.(Para 1 to 13)

The writ petition is allowed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Ajay Agarwal & ors. Vs Commr Lko & ors.
(2023) ADJ 561 LB

2. Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha Vs St.of U.P. &
anr..(2005)2 AWC 1087

3. Raj Kumar Vs St.of U.P. & ors. (Writ-C No.
19644 of 2016

4. Smt. Pushpa Sareen Vs St. of U.P. (2015)
Supreme (All) 132

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India has been filed
assailing the order dated February 3, 2011
passed by the respondent No.2 in Stamp
Case No.V-767/09-10 and the order passed
in appeal dated October 17, 2011 by the
respondent No.1 in Appeal No.21/2010-11.

3. The challenge in this writ petition
is with regard to the additional stamp duty
sought
by
the
respondents-authorities