Allowed

M/S Gupta Timber Products v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2022WRIC/24321/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed impugned orders passed by the Labour Court due to delay and consent of parties, remanding the matter for fresh decision within three months, while directing expeditious disposal of proceedings and acceptance of the petitioner's rejoinder affidavit upon deposit of costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 11.2.2021 and 23.5.2019 quashed. Matter remanded to Labour Court for decision afresh within three months. Petitioner's rejoinder affidavit to be accepted upon payment of Rs. 5,00

M/S Gupta Timber Products Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24321 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Gupta Timber Products Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- CSC

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2 and Sri Vijay Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

¶6

The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayers :-

¶7

" i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 24.6.2022 passed in Adjudication case no.1088 of 2003 (Ashok Rawat vs Gupta Timber) issued by respondent no.2;

¶8

ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 05.5.2022 issued by respondent no.2;

¶9

iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 03.12.2021 issued by respondent no.2 to the extent imposing a cost of Rs 2500/;

¶10

iv) issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to accept the rejoinder statement already filed by petitioner on 27.10.2021;"

¶11

Earlier the petitioner has approached this Court by filing a petition being Writ C No.15053 of 2021 (Gupta Timber Products Privater Limited Vs. State of U.P. & 2 others). The aforesaid writ petition was finally disposed of by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgement and order dated 10.08.2021 by which the directions were given to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, U.P. Ghaziabad to conclude the proceedings within a period of three months. The order dated 10.08.2021 is reproduced hereinbelow :-

¶12

"Heard Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and Sri Samarth Sinha, learned counsel for the contesting respondent no. 3 and perused the record.

¶13

Present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 11.2.2021 and 23.5.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2-Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, UP Ghaziabad.

¶14

At the very outset, learned counsel for the parties agree that the matter may be remanded to respondent no. 2-Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, UP Ghaziabad for decision afresh.

¶15

In view of the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 11.2.2021 and 23.5.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2-Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, UP Ghaziabad are hereby quashed.

¶16

Matter is remanded to the respondent no. 2-Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, UP Ghaziabad for decision afresh, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a self-attested copy of this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournments.

¶17

Learned counsel for the parties undertakes that they shall cooperate in the hearing and no unnecessary adjournments will be taken.

¶18

It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the case.

¶19

No order as to costs."

¶20

After the aforesaid order was passed an application was filed by the petitioner before the respondent no.2-Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, UP Ghaziabad on 28.10.2021 with the prayer to except the rejoinder affidavit.

¶21

It is clear from perusal of the record that inspite of time granted no rejoinder affidavit was filed hence an application was filed by the petitioner before the respondent no.2 on 28.10.2021 with the prayer to except the rejoinder affidavit. On the said application an order was passed by the respondent no.2 on 3.12.2021 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2500/as a costs for accepting rejoinder affidavit, thereafter, another application was filed by the petitioner, which was rejected on the same grounds. Aggrieved against the aforesaid petitioner has preferred present writ petition.

¶22

From perusal of the record it is clear that direction has already been issued by this Court on 10.08.2021 directing the respondent no.2 to conclude the proceedings in the matter within a period of three months. More than one year has lapsed but till date the proceedings are pending before the respondent no.2. It further appears that on the one pretext or the other the petitioner is trying to linger on the proceedings. The Court is inclined to interfere with the orders impugned, which were passed by the respondent no.2. A lenient view has been taken by the respondent no.2.

¶23

It is argued by Sri Vijay Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents that in case petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- in favour of respondent no.2 and make payment of the aforesaid amount to the respondent no.2 by way of demand

¶24

draft/banker cheque within one week from today, the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner will be accepted by the respondent no.2. This request has been duly accepted by the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶25

On the basis of the aforesaid, in case petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.5,000/- by way of demand draft/banker cheque before the respondent no.2 within a period of one week from today, the respondent no.2 will accept the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. It is further directed to the respondent no.2 to decide the proceedings of the case No.1088/03 most expeditiously and preferably within a period of 30 days from today. It is made clear that no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted and if adjournment at all has to be granted, it shall not exceed a period of one or two days. The case shall be decided strictly in regard to the schedule of time indicated hereinabove.

¶26

With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is disposed of.

¶27

Order Date :- 29.8.2022 Pramod Tripathi

¶28

Digitally signed by PRAMOD TRIPATHI Date: 2022.09.02 16:37:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Gupta Timber Products v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Gupta Timber Products 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

Smt. Sadhna Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Kamla Devi Vs Sub Divisional Officer and 8 Others

Kalideen Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Subhwant Singh Vs Narendra Shanker Pandey D.M. Bhadohi

Smt. Shaista Vs State Election Commission U.P. and 5 Others

M/S Gupta Timber Products Private Limited Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others