Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC29 Oct 2021WRIC/28266/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the State of U.P.'s writ petition as liable on laches for filing it three years after a prior order. The court condemned the State's chronic lack of diligence and repeated cancellations of counsel's appearances, awarding Rs. 25,000 in costs to the workman.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and costs of Rs. 25,000 were imposed upon the State-petitioners.

State of U.P. and 3 Others Vs Presiding… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28266 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Respondent :- Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Gorakhpur And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shreeprakash Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shreeprakash Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners-State.

¶6

By means of the instant writ petition, the State has assailed the award dated 12.04.2004 and the order dated 18.02.2013 passed by the respondent No.1/Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Gorakhpur, rejecting the restoration application filed by the State. The order dated 13.11.2019 and the order dated 08.01.2021 passed the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow in recovery proceedings taken out under Section 6-H of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have also been impugned in this writ petition.

¶7

The award was rendered in favour of the respondent No.2-workman on 12.04.2004. According to the State-petitioners, the award was ex parte as the counsel for the State had failed to appear before the labour court. The State authorities moved a restoration application on 07.04.2005 for recall of the award dated 12.04.2004. The restoration application too was

¶8

dismissed for non prosecution on account of the absence of the counsel on behalf of the State on 18.02.2013. Another restoration application was filed on behalf of the State which has also dismissed by the order dated 26.10.2018. It is noteworthy that the order dated 26.10.2018 has not been assailed in the writ petition.

¶9

The order dated 26.10.2018 notices the order dated 18.02.2013 whereby the application for restoration submitted by the State was rejected. The cause for absence of the counsel as stated in the restoration application was that his wife had fallen ill on the date of hearing. The second application for restoration was filed on 03.07.2015 more than two and half years after the earlier application was rejected.

¶10

The learned court below thereafter has found that the counsel on behalf of the State authorities was not present when the adjudication proceedings were on foot. Further, the counsel for the State authorities chose to absent himself when the restoration application was taken up for hearing on 18.02.2013.

¶11

The second restoration application was filed more than two and half years after the first restoration application was rejected. There is no

¶12

explanation for the delay of more than two and half years in filing the second restoration application. On the foot of the aforesaid narrative, the labour court has found that the State was never diligent in prosecuting the case and no good cause was made out for allowing the restoration application and recalling the award. In this manner, the order dated 26.10.2018 rejected the application of the State.

¶13

A perusal of the record demonstrates continuous lack of diligence of the State and its counsels towards the proceedings pending before the court below. The State and the counsel have been chronic defaulters as demonstrated by their repeated absence in the proceedings before the court below. They have shown apathy towards plight of the litigant and disregard for the process of the law. This is not the first time the Court has noticed such conduct on part of the State-petitioners and its appointed counsels. Such conduct cannot be condoned.

¶14

This writ petition has been filed three years after the order dated 26.10.2018. No good cause has been shown for the delay. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on laches alone.

¶15

The State-petitioners in this case are trying to take advantage of its unequal bargaining power to

¶16

break the will of the workman who has an award in his favour. The recovery citation too was issued after a long period.

¶17

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶18

Costs of Rs.25,000/- are imposed upon the State-petitioners which are liable to be paid along with the awarded amount to the respondent No.2workman.

¶19

It is open to the petitioners/State authorities to take appropriate proceedings against the concerned officials who were responsible for the state affairs and recover the awarded amount from them.

¶20

Order Date :- 29.10.2021 Ashish Tripathi

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

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

Ashfak Ahmad Vs Ajeet Singh Tehsildar