Allowed

M/S Auto Garage Auto Mobile and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2021WRIC/12184/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an ex parte penalty order for child labour as illegal and arbitrary. The order violated natural justice due to insufficient time for reply and lack of service of the inspection report. The court directed the respondent to reimburse Rs. 10,000.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 30.08.2007 is set aside. Respondents are directed to reimburse Rs.10,000 forthwith.

M/S Auto Garage Auto Mobile and Another Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12184 of 2010 Petitioner :- M/S Auto Garage Auto Mobile And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶2

Matter is taken up in the revised call.

¶3

Sri Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶4

The petitioners have assailed the order dated 30.08.2007 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P., Azamgarh imposing penalty of Rs.20,000/- upon them for employment of child labour at the establishment of M/s Auto Garage Auto Mobile, Ram Ki Sarai, Azamgarh.

¶5

Sri Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the order is ex parte to the petitioners. The petitioners were not noticed and denied opportunity to tender their defence to the charges against them. The charges are denied by the petitioners.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners has called attention to the pleadings in the writ petition that the inspection report on the foot of which the impugned order was passed was not supplied to the petitioners. The period of three days is insufficient

¶7

and is unreasonably sought to tender an effective reply. The period for submission of reply to the show cause notice should be a reasonable one.

¶8

The averments in the writ petition are not disputed in the counter affidavit. No counter affidavit has been filed despite ample opportunity being granted to the State authorities.

¶9

In the wake of preceding discussion and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners have merit. The relevant pleadings in the writ petition have not been traversed. The pleadings in the writ petition is liable to be believed. This Court finds that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Further, the time granted in the show cause notice to submit a reply in defence was very short which led to miscarriage of justice.

¶10

The impugned order dated 30.08.2007 reflects nonapplication of mind. The impugned order dated 30.08.2007 is illegal and arbitrary.

¶11

The impugned order dated 30.08.2007 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P., Azamgarh is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

¶12

The respondents authorities are directed to

¶13

reimburse Rs.10,000/- forthwith.

¶14

It is open to the respondents authorities to take out the proceedings in accordance with law.

¶15

The writ petition is allowed.

¶16

Order Date :- 12.11.2021 Ashish Tripathi

M/S Auto Garage Auto Mobile and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Auto Garage Auto Mobile and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramkeshviyar Vs State of U.P.

Triloki Singh Vs Manager/Sewa Yojak Pariyojna Prabandhak and Others

M/S Resistoflex Dynamics Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs Authority Under Section 6-H1 of U.P.and Others

U.P.S.R.T. Corporation Vs State of U.P. and Others

Istiyak Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akida Bano Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others