Allowed

M/S Triveni Engineering and Industries Limited v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC26 Oct 2021WRIC/35005/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition quashing an order under Section 6H2 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The authority lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a disputed claim where the employer-employee relationship itself was in controversy. The court relied on various constitutional precedents concerning jurisdictional limits in recovery proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order dated 06.04.2009 and the consequential recovery notice dated 11.05.2009; allow the writ petition.

M/S Triveni Engineering and Industries Limited Vs… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35005 of 2009 Petitioner :- M/S Triveni Engineering And Industries Limited Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Diptiman Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶3

Matter is taken up in the revised call. None appears on behalf of the respondent workman. Respondent no.4workman was duly noticed.

¶4

Shri Diptiman Singh, learned counsel assisted by Shri Abhijeet Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioneremployer submits that the impugned order dated 06.04.2009 passed in purported exercise of powers under Section 6H2 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequential recovery notice dated 11.05.2009 are beyond jurisdiction.

¶5

The essential prerequisite for exercise of powers under Section 6H2 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 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 Section 6H2 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the present case employer employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent workman is disputed.

¶6

The authority while passing the impugned order exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating a disputed

¶7

claim made by the private respondent. Reliance is placed on the law laid down by various Constitutional Courts.[ 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]

¶8

The impugned order dated 06.04.2009 and the consequential recovery notice dated 11.05.2009 are liable to be set aside and are set aside.

¶9

The writ petition is liable to be allowed and is allowed.

¶10

It is contended by Shri Diptiman Singh, learned counsel assisted by Shri Abhijeet Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a model employer and is conscious of its social responsibilities. As a gesture of goodwill, the petitioner shall disburse a sum of Rs. 21,000/- (Rupees twenty one thousand only) to the respondent.

¶11

This Court fully appreciates the gesture on the part of the petitioner. However, this charitable act on the part of the petitioner is a purely voluntary one and shall not be construed as a part of this judgement or as a precedent.

¶12

Order Date :- 26.10.2021/Dhananjai

M/S Triveni Engineering and Industries Limited v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Triveni Engineering and Industries Limited 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Bata India Limited and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Others

Chaudhari Charan Singh University Thru. Its Registrar Vs Presiding Officer,Labour Court and 2 Others

Nagar Nigam Allahabad Thru Municipal Commissioner Vs Employees State Insurance Corp. Ltd. and Another

Laxmiratan Cotton Mills Vs P.O. Labour Court-I Kanpur and Others

M/S. British India Corporation Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Angoori Vs Commissioner Workman Compensation Act/Dlc Saharanpur and Ors.