Dismissed

M/S Jain International and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2022WRIC/10084/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove employment figures under five and declined extraordinary jurisdiction, directing them to pursue a statutory appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; stay of limitation for statutory appeal under Section 7(7) granted for two weeks.

M/S Jain International and Another Vs State of U.P… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10084 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Jain International And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Radhey Shyam Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶6

Challenge has been raised to the order dated 12.03.2022 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

¶7

Solitary ground raised in the present petition is that the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kanpur Nagar lacked territorial jurisdiction to pass the impugned order under Section 7 of the Act. Reference has been made to the objection raised in that regard on 27.07.2021 (annexed as annexure 8 to the writ petition) and the notification issued by the State Government No.1712 dated 10 September, 2007. Referring to Clause 12 of that notification, it has been claimed that the Assistant Labour, Kanpur Region, Kanpur has been vested with territorial jurisdiction over the districts-Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur Dehat, Itawah, Farrukhabad, Kannauj and Auraiya only.

¶8

Referring to the fact pleadings made in the objection above noted, it has been further submitted that the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Agra Region, Agra alone would have territorial jurisdiction over the petitioners.

¶9

Further, it has been submitted that petitioners had engaged only five workmen. Therefore, they fell outside

¶10

the scope of applicability of the Act. Those being the two objections raised, it has been then submitted that the same have not been properly dealt with by the impugned order.

¶11

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel would submit that the objections have been duly considered. The petitioners were found to be having two branches of one establishment, one at Kanpur and the other at Agra. Therefore, no error has been made by the Kanpur authority in assuming jurisdiction. In any case, in absence of any evidence produced by the petitioners to establish that they had not employed more than five persons, an adverse inference has been drawn in face of the admitted fact that the petitioners were registered under the Uttar Pradesh Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1962.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, even if it may not be assumed that the petitioners had two establishments, one at Kanpur and the other at Agra, it was incumbent on the petitioners to prove that they had not engaged more than five persons at Kanpur before their objection as to jurisdiction of the Kanpur authority could be sustained.

¶13

On that aspect, as recorded in the impugned order, the petitioners did not produce the statutory returns and documents to establish that it had engaged five or less than five workmen at its establishment at Kanpur.

¶14

In such fact, no good ground is made out to offer any interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a mixed question of fact and law is involved. It would have

¶15

material bearing on the ground of jurisdiction raised by the petitioners.

¶16

On the other hand, the petitioners have adequate remedy of statutory appeal under Section 7(7) of the Act. Leaving it open to the petitioners to avail that remedy of appeal, interference claimed in the present writ petition is declined.

¶17

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioners file such an appeal, within a period of two weeks from today, after complying with the statutory condition of Section 7(7) of the Act, the said appeal may be entertained on merits, without raising any objection as to limitation. This observation has been made in light of the prevailing circumstances arising from the spread of the third wave of the pandemic COVID-19.

¶18

Order Date :- 12.4.2022 S.Chaurasia

¶19

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM CHAURASIA Date: 2022.04.12 17:30:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Jain International and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jain International and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Dev Narayan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Awadesh Singh Vs State of U P and 3 Others

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

M/S Modi Arc Electrodes Company Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court and 5 Others

M/S Patanjali Sewa Sansthan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Muhammad Hasan Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others