Disposed

Saukat and 17 Others v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2018WRIA/16712/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging denial of permanent employment to daily wagers. While alternative remedy under Section 70 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act exists, the court empowered petitioners to apply within two months for the Registrar to decide merits without limitation bar.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to petitioners to file application under Section 70 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 within two months.

Saukat and 17 Others Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16712 of 2018 Petitioner :- Saukat And 17 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Tripathi,Chandra Nath Bhatt Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ravindra Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to amend the array of parties and implead the Registrar, Cane Cooperative/Chini Mill Societies, U.P. Lucknow as respondent no. 10.

¶5

The petitioners have assailed the order dated 29.05.2018 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. Sahkari Chini Mills Federation Ltd., wherein it has been directed that the daily wagers and seasonal staff shall be employed only during the crushing season. Petitioners contend that they are entitled to permanent employment since their lands had been purchased for setting up of the Chini Mills.

¶6

Sri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 9 submits that the issues raised by the petitioners are factual in nature and need verification by a competent authority. He further contends that the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy by getting the disputes referred to the Registrar, Cane Cooperative/Chini Mill Societies, U.P. Lucknow, for action in accordance with provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners in his usual fairness does not dispute the existence of an alternative remedy. He does not press the reliefs claimed in the writ petition at this stage. However, he contends that there would be some delay in approaching the Registrar, Cane Cooperative/Chini Mill Societies, U.P. Lucknow under Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, since the petitioners had instituted the instant writ petition with bonafide intent. He submits that the period of limitation be enlarged.

¶8

No useful purpose will be served by keeping this writ petition pending.

¶9

In view of the above submissions made at the bar it is open to the petitioners to make an application under Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 in regard of their dispute. In case, such an application is made within a period of two months the Registrar, Cane Cooperative/Chini Mill Societies,

¶10

U.P. Lucknow, shall decide the dispute on merits without going into the issue of limitation. The Registrar, Cane Cooperative/Chini Mill Societies, U.P. Lucknow, shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, after hearing all necessary parties including the Sugar Mills. The dispute shall be decided within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order alongwith an application under Section 17 of the Act.

¶11

The writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶12

Order Date :- 23.10.2018 Pravin

Saukat and 17 Others v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saukat and 17 Others v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Mahendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Nagar Palika Parishad, Jhansi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dev Narain Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Natthi Lal Vs Union of India through Its Principal Secretary, Finance, New Delhi and 2 Others

C/M Vijay Nath Ram Shekhar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Others