Disposed

M/S Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Aug 2021WRIC/12239/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a Labour Court order, the High Court, without deciding merits, directed parties to lead evidence. It directed the Labour Court to decide the validity of the reference regarding the existence of an industrial dispute before passing an award, keeping the challenge to the impugned order open.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed on consent. Parties directed to lead evidence. Labour Court directed to decide validity of reference on existence of industrial dispute before award.

M/S Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12239 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Himadari Batra,Anurag Khanna (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shekhar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Anurag Khanna, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Himadari Batra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shekhar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, as well as, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

By the instant writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 18 November 2019, passed by the second respondent- Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gautambuddh Nagar, U.P., in Adjudication Case No. 268 of 2012 (Shri Ranjeet Singh vs. M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited).

¶7

An industrial dispute came to be referred by the State Government vide communication dated 19 March 2012. The reference was to the effect, as to whether, removal of Shri Ranjeet Singh (workman) w.e.f. 12 May 2009 is lawful or not and the consequences thereof.

¶8

The petitioner/employer put in appearance and flied their objection with regard to the maintainability and validity of the reference stating that on the said date there was no industrial dispute as the workman came to be removed from service w.e.f. 21 April 2010 after domestic enquiry. The Labour Court framed two preliminary issues:

¶9

i.) as to whether, the employer followed the principles of natural justice in the domestic enquiry, if not, its consequences;

¶10

ii.) as to whether, on 12 May 2009, an industrial dispute existed inter se parties;

¶11

It is urged that by the impugned order the first issue has been decided in favour of the workman and against the petitioner.

¶12

Learned senior counsel submits that the Labour Court before proceeding further in the matter, should have decided the second issue with regard to the validity of the reference, as to whether, industrial dispute existed on the said date, thereafter, proceed on merits.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent has no objection but submits that the parties may lead evidence as directed by the impugned order. It is submitted that the instant writ petition has been filed assailing the findings on a preliminary issue, the Tribunal is yet to decide on merits.

¶14

This Court at this stage is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. It is clarified that the validity of the impugned order is kept open, the petitioner would be at liberty to assail the order in the event, the Labour Court is to answer the reference and pass an award. Insofar with

¶15

regard to the second preliminary issue, the issue goes to the root of the lis between the parties. The fate of the proceedings would depend upon the findings being returned by the Labour Court on the second issue.

¶16

In view thereof, on consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of by passing the following order:

¶17

i.) the parties pursuant to the impugned order shall lead their evidence;

¶18

ii.) the Labour Court shall decide the issue with regard to the validity of the reference before rendering the award;

¶19

iii.) it is clarified that the Court has not considered the impugned order on merits. It is left open for the petitioner to assail the findings, on an award being rendered;

¶20

iv.) parties agree to participate in the proceedings and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment;

¶21

v.) the Labour Court shall make an endeavor to answer the reference expeditiously.

¶22

Order Date :- 12.8.2021 S.Prakash

M/S Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Sir Syed Society Varanasi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kuldeep and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vishwanath Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jai Ram Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Devi Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others