# U.P.S.S.Corp v. R.N.Singh & others

- **Citation:** (1999) 1 ILRA 146
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-s-s-corp-v-r-n-singh-others-39073
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

146 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
8. Legislature has used the word any money is due to workman under
settlement of award and Chapter VIII section 33© (2) mentions that
it can be recovered by him. In fact this section is for the enforcement
of existing rights. It is just like an executing proceedings and petition
can be filed to claim the amount due under gratuity and also under
the settlement.

9. We are also of the view that there is no violation of Article 14 of
constitution of India as the restriction is reasonable and it has been
imposed with the consent of the parties just to secure the payment of
the gratuity in time. The Payment of Gratuity Act is a social
legislation to protect the weaker section of society and the Hon'ble
supreme court has held valid this piece of legislation in case of
Bakshish Singh Vs. Darshan Engineering works (1994) 1 S.C.C.9.
In this case it was observed that it must be paid irrespective of
financial capacity otherwise establishment has no right to exist.

10. We, therefore, for the reasons recorded above dismiss the writ
petition finding no force in the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner. The stay order is vacated. We direct the Labour Court to
decide application pending before it within three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,2
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( *3 0$7+85 -
7+( +21·%/( *3 0$7+85 -
7+( +21·%/( 65 $/$0 -
7+( +21·%/( 65 $/$0 -
&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI
0V 5DM $VKRN 2LO &RPSDQ\
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU WKH SHWLWLRQHU
 6UL 0. *XSWD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH UHVSRQGHQWV
 6UL 8. 3DQGH\
 6UL 6DEKDMHHW <DGDY
$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD2WKH HQIRUFHPHQW RI WKH
*2 GDWHG ZRXOG QRW UHVXOW LQYLRODWLRQ RI WKH 3HWUROLXP
1998
------
U.P.S.S.Corp
 Vs.
R.N.Singh
& others
------
B.K.Roy, J.
R.K.
Mahajan, J.
1998
------
September,21
1 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES 147
$FW DQG WKH UXOHV PDGH WKHUHXQGHU 3DUDJUDSK RI WKH
*2 SURYLGHV WKDW D EORFN GLVWULEXWRU ZRXOG EH UHTXLUHG WR KDYH D
OLFHQFH XQGHU )RUP ,; RI WKH 3HWUROLXP UXOHV DQG KH ZRXOG EH
JRYHUQHG E\ DOO WKH SURYLVLRQV RI WKH 3HWUROLXP $FW DQG UXOHV PDGH
WKHUHXQGHU
By the Court

The controversy raised in these petitions is identical and therefore,
they are being disposed of by a common order. Writ petition No.
28679 of 1979 shall be treated as leading petition. The petitioners
seek quashing of the government order dated 19.5.1990 (annexure-1
to the writ petition) in so far it directs the petitioners to make
supplies of Kerosene from the Oil Depot to the business premises of
the Distributors and they have made a further prayer that a writ of
mandamus be issued restraining the respondents from enforcing
Clause-4 of the aforesaid government order.

For making easy availability of the Kerosene in the rural areas under
the public distribution system, the State Govt. issued a government
order on 19.5.1990. This provides that in order to facilitate the job of
lifting of Kerosene by the retailers a Block Distributor or Wholesaler
shall be appointed in each block. This arrangment will be done under
the U.P. Kerosene Control Order, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the
Control Order) except where a wholesaler of the oil companies is
already functioning in a block. The government order lays down the
order of preference for appointment of Block Distributors and first
preference is to be given to the wholesalers/agents working in the
district. An effort is to be made that the wholesalers/agents working
in the district should work as Block Distributors so that there may
not be any problem of co-ordination. Para-4 of the government order
provides that F.O.R. delivery of Kerosene shall be made to the Block
Distributors for which necessary instructions shall be given to the
wholesaler by the District Magistrate. The government order is a
detailed one and contains instructions regarding the procedure which
is to be adopted for attaching the retailers to a Block Distributor,
fixation of price of Kerosene and fixation of transport charges
etc.

(3) Shri M.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that the enforcement of the government order dated
19.5.1990 would result in violation of the Petroleum Act, 1934 and
the Rules made thereunder and therfore, the government order
1998
------
M/s R.A.Oil
Company
 Vs.
State of U.P.
& others
------
G.P.Mathur, J.
S.R.Alam, J.
148 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
deserves to be quashed or it should not be enforced against the
petitioners.

(4) In order to appreciate the arguments raised by learned counsel,
it is necessary to note few provisions of U.P. Kerosene Control
Order, 1962. Clause 2(a) (aa), (d) and (f) of the Control Order read
as follows:

2(a): "agent" means an agent appointed by an oil Company for
distribution ofKerosene to distributor or to retail dealers and holding
licence in Form III;

(aa): "Distributor" means a person holding a licence in Form III-A to
take Kerosene delivery from an agent for distribution thereof to retail
dealers, and to such other persons as directed by the Licensing
Authority:

(d ) "licensee" means an agent or a distributor or a retail dealer;

(f ) "retail Dealer" means a person holding a licence in Form IV.

(5) The petitioners are "agent" and they have been appointed so by
an oil Company for distribution of Kerosene to distributors or to
retail dealers and hold licence in Form-III. As the definition shows
"distributor" means a person holding a licence in Form III-A to take
delivery of Kerosene from an agent for distribution thereof to retail
dealers and to such other persons as directed by the Licensing
Authority. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 4 of the
Petroleum Act, the Central Government has made the Petroleum
Rules, 1976. Rule 76 provides that no person shall load or unload a
tank vehicle with any class of Petroleum except at a place which is
situated within premises licensed under these rules and is approved
in writing, for loading or unloading of such class of petroleum, by
the Chief Controller.

(6) Learned counsel has submitted that under the impugned
government order the petitioners, who are agent would be required to
unload Kerosene at the business premises of a block distributor and it
is likely that such block distributor may not hold or possed any
licence as required by the Petroleum Rules. In such an event the
agent would be liable to be punished for the same. In our opinion, the
contention raised has no substance. Para-3,7 of the government order
provides that a block distributor would be required to have a licence
1998
------
M/s R.A.Oil
Company
 Vs.
State of U.P.
& others
------
G.P.Mathur, J.
S.R.Alam, J.
1 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES 149
under Form IX of the Petroleum Rules and he would be governed by
all the provisions of the petroleum Act and Rules made thereunder.
This shows that the State Govt. was fully conscious of the legal
position and the government order itself contemplates compliance of
Rule 76 of the petroleum Rules. A person cannot be appointed as
Block Distributor unless he holds a licence in Form XI of the
Petroleum Rules and has complied with all the requirements of the
Petroleum Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Even otherwise, no
government order can make such a provision the enforcement
whereof may result in breach or violation of any statute or the rules.
Therefore, the apprehension expressed by the petitioners that the
enforcement of the government order may result in violation of the
Petroleum Act or the Rules is wholly baseless.

(7) Shri Gupta has next contended that the enforcement of the
government order may result in financial loss to the petitioners as
they will have to bear additional costs in transporting Kerosene from
the Oil Depot to the place of storage of a Block Distributor. The
government order contains several annexures and Clause 4.1 of
Annexure-2 thereof provides that while attaching a Block Distributor
to a wholesaler or ""agent" care should be taken that it should be
done in such a manner that the transport charges are reduced to a
minimum. Annexure-10 to the government order deals with fixation
of price. Here a specific provision had been made for transport
charges. They have to be calculated by taking into consideration the
distance of the storage point of the wholesaler from the oil Depot
multiplied by the cartage charges per kilolitre per kilometre. There is
specific clause in this annexure regarding the price which an agent
can charge from a Block Distributor and here it is provided that
while calculating the transport charges, the District Magistrate shall
take into consideration the distance of the oil Depot from the storage
point of the Block Distributor. Therefore, the government order has
taken care of the fact that an agent or wholesaler will have to incur
additional expenditure in transporting the Kerosene oil to the storage
point of a Block Distributor and the price which is to be paid by a
Block Distributor is to be fixed after taking into consideration the
transport chartges. Thus the contention that the enforcement of the
government order may result in financial loss to an agent is wholly
unfounded.

8. Lastly, it was contended that the government order may result in
breach of the conditions of the licence which has been issued to an
agent under Form III. It is urged that thecondition no.2(I) of
1998
------
M/s R.A.Oil
Company
 Vs.
State of U.P.
& others
------
G.P.Mathur, J.
S.R.Alam, J.
150 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
theconditions of licence provides that licensee shall not carry on
business or store Kerosene except in the premises specified in his
licence but now he will berequired to supply Kerosene at the storatge
point of a Block Distributor. The U.P. Kerosene Control Order has
been issued by the U.P. Government in exercise of powers conferred
by Section 3 read with Section 5 of Essential Commodities Act. The
government order dated 19.5.1990 does not in any manner
contravenes the provisions of Control Order. In fact, the conditions
of licence is given in Form III, which is applicable to an agent, have
been amended by a Notification issued on 10.5.1990. The second
proviso to condition no.2, after its amendment, reads as follows:
"Provided further that any specified stock of Kerosene may be
delivered by the agent at the premises of the distributors or retail
dealers with the permission of the Licensing Authority."

9. In view of this amendment, the supply of Kerosene by an agent to
a Block Distributor would not amount to breach of conditions of
Licence as the State Govt. had taken care to amend the licence itself
before issuing the government order. Shri Gupta has also urged that
the condition No.3 of the licence requires an agent to maintain stock
register in which the opening stock, quantities of Kerosene received
from Oil Company and the quantities sold or delivered or otherwise
disposed of each day has to be shown correctly. According to learned
counsel if an agent delivers stock of Kerosene directly to a Block
Distributor from the Depot of an Oil Company, there may be
difficulties in maintaining the stock register. The apprehension
expressed by the petitioners in this regard is wholly baseless. Clause
13 of the conditions of the licence reads as follows:

"The Licensee shall comply with any general or special
directions issued by the Licensing Authority, from time to time,
in regard to the disposal of any stocks of Kerosene held by him
or in regard to the maintenance of any other records of returns,
as required by the Licensing Authority."

10. The agent can bring to the notice of licensing authority any
problem or difficulty which may arise in maintenance of record and
the Licensing Authority is empowered to issued special directions in
that regard. The problem contemplated by the petitioners for
maintenance of the record is more imaginary than real and it can
easily be solved by concerned licensing authority.

1998
------
M/s R.A.Oil
Company
 Vs.
State of U.P.
& others
------
G.P.Mathur, J.
S.R.Alam, J.
1 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES 151
It may be pointed out that the government order has been
issued in order to facilitate delivery of Kerosene to retail
distributors and fair price shop keepers in the rural area so that
the people living in remote areas may get this essential
commodity conveniently under the public distribution system. In
absence of a Block Distributor the petty retailers have to collect
their quota of kerosene from the storage point of agents and
wholesalers which are situate at a great distances. The supply of
Kerosene by the agents or wholesalers to Block Distributors will
reduce the distance which a retailer will have to cover in order to
get his quota of Kerosene as his place of business is not likely to
be at a great distance from the Block Headquarter. The
government order having been issued for the convenience of
people living in the rural areas cannot be struck down on these
technical grounds at the instance of agents and wholesalers who
make easy money without much effort as the Kerosene is
supplied to them by the government owned Oild Companies.

11. No other point has been urged.

12. For the reason mentioned above, the writ petitions have no merit
and are hereby dismissed. Stay order is vacated.
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( '. 6(7+ -
7+( +21·%/( '. 6(7+ -
&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI
&RQVWDEOH -1 5DL
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
663 $OODKDEDG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU WKH SHWLWLRQHU
 6PW 3RRQDP 6ULYDVWDYD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH UHVSRQGHQWV
 6&
 0U .5 6LQJK
83 3ROLFH 2IILFHUV RI 6XERUGLQDWH 5DQNV23XQLVKPHQW DQG $SSHDO
5XOHV
26HFWLRQ
LDE26XVSHQVLRQ
2UGHU23DVVHG
ZLWKRXW
DSSOLFDWLRQ
RI
PLQG21R
GHSDUWPHQWDO
HQTXLU\
FRQWHPSODWHG2WKH
RQO\
UHDVRQ
GLVFORVHG
WKDW
WKH
FULPLQDO
1998
------
M/s R.A.Oil
Company
 Vs.
State of U.P.
& others
------
G.P.Mathur, J.
S.R.Alam, J.
1998
------
October, 27