Allowed

M/S Aristo Printer Pvt. Ltd. Thru M.D. v. Asstt. Labour Commissioner Ghaziabad and Another

Allahabad HC29 Oct 2021WRIC/20653/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition setting aside a recovery notice issued under Section 6H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. It held that the authority exceeded jurisdiction by adjudicating a disputed claim lacking an existing or prior adjudicated entitlement.

What did the court decide?

The impugned recovery notice dated 31.01.2009 was set aside and the writ petition was allowed.

M/S Aristo Printer Pvt. Ltd. Thru M.D. Vs Asstt… — Execution and Attachment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20653 of 2009

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Aristo Printer Pvt. Ltd. Thru M.D. Respondent :- Asstt. Labour Commissioner Ghaziabad And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- R.S. Misra,Arun Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Matter is taken up in the revised call. Sri R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner is present. None appears for the respondent workman.

¶6

The petitioner has assailed the award dated 31.01.2009 passed in purported exercise of power under Section 6H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

¶7

No counter affidavit has been filed despite time being granted by this Court. The averments in the writ petition have not been traversed.

¶8

The authority while passing the impugned order exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating a disputed claim made by the private respondent.

¶9

The essential prerequisite for exercise of powers under Section 6H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act is that the claim should be existing or should be adjudicated by a competent court/ authority prior to the institution of the proceedings. Disputed claims of entitlement cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under

¶10

Section 6H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶11

In the present case the employer employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent workmen is disputed. The workman had no existing claim. Further the claim made by the respondent workman were duly contested. The entitlement claimed by the workman was disputed. No labour court had passed any award in favour of the workman.

¶12

The scope of Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is in pari materia with Section 6H (1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. A body of judicial precedent clearly delienated the jurisdiction of authority deciding the claim under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act/ 6H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. These statement of law is fortified by good authorities in point:

¶13

[Ref: Writ C No 43515 of 2017, Nagar Palika Parishad Vs. State of U.P.; District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Allahabad Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, reported at 2007 (7) ADJ 142; Union of India Vs. Kankuben (Dead ) reported at 2006 AIR (SC) 1784; D. Krishnan Vs. Special Officer, Vellore Coop. S.M. Reported at 2008 (7) SCC 22].

¶14

The authority while passing the impugned order dated 31.01.2009 exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating disputed question of facts, entitlement and also acted in the teeth of the law laid down by constitutional courts discussed above.

¶15

The impugned recovery notice dated 31.01.2009 is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

¶16

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶17

Order Date :- 29.10.2021 Nadeem

M/S Aristo Printer Pvt. Ltd. Thru M.D. v. Asstt. Labour Commissioner Ghaziabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Aristo Printer Pvt. Ltd. Thru M.D. v. Asstt. Labour Commissioner Ghaziabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Poonam Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Niryat-Sam Apparels India Limited Noida Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court U.P. Noida and 4 Others

Kanhaiya Lal Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

M/S Aristo Printer Pvt. Ltd. Thru M.D. Vs Asstt. Labour Commissioner Ghaziabad and Another

State of U.P. and 3 Others Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Gorakhpur and Another

Ashfak Ahmad Vs Ajeet Singh Tehsildar