Disposed

Saf Yeast Compandy Ltd.U.P.S.I.D.C.Industrial v. State of U.P.through Prin.Secy.Labour Dept.and 6 Ors.

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2023WRIC/1000376/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order dispensed with adjudication and disposed of a long-pending writ petition after the matter was settled. The court prohibited further proceedings under a show-cause notice on the ground that the dispute had been resolved.

What did the court decide?

Prohibition of further proceedings under the show-cause notice dated 20.12.2000 and no further action against the petitioner.

Saf Yeast Compandy Ltd.U.P.S.I.D.C.Industrial Vs… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:48758

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1000376 of 2001

¶4

Petitioner :- Saf Yeast Compandy Ltd.U.P.S.I.D.C.Industrial Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Prin.Secy.Labour Dept.And 6 Ors

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Bose,Dr.L.P.Misra,Manish Kumar,Manish Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pramod Kumar Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶8

By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:-

¶9

"i) a writ or writs, direction or directions and/or order or orders in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned show cause notices dated 20.12.2000 issued by Sri V.K. Srivastava Assistant Labour Commissioner, 23-A.P. Sen Road, Lucknow together with the proceedings instituted by the Labour Commissioner U.P. Kanpur in respect of the charter of demand dated 17.5.2000 submitted by the General Secretary of All India Trade Union Congress Lucknow, and,

¶10

ii) a writ or writs, direction or directions and/or order or orders in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents hereto from continuing with the proceedings in respect of the impugned show cause notices issued against the petitioners Company, as well as restrain the said respondents from proceedings any further with the proceedings with regard to the charter of demand dated 17.5.2000 as contained in Annexure No.31 hereto, and,

¶11

iii) a writ or writs, direction or directions and/or order or orders in the nature of mandamus directing the State Government of U.P. to take appropriate action against the respondent No.6 and 7 hereto, for illegal and unauthorised and mala fide action against the petitioners Company."

¶12

Attention has been drawn towards an application for disposal of the writ petition along with supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on 22.02.2023; along with aforesaid affidavit the petitioner has filed the order dated 18.01.2013 (Annexure No.SA-1) passed by the Court in Criminal Revision No.457 of 2000. Annexure No.SA-2 is the copy of two agreements dated 02.02.2023.

¶13

This Court vide order dated 02.02.2023 has set aside the

¶14

judgment passed by the Industrial Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid agreements, the order of the Court dated 02.02.2023 has been enclosed as Annexure No.SA-3, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically indicated in the para 15 of the aforesaid affidavit that in view of the aforesaid fact, the impugned notices which are under challenge in the instant writ petition are liable to be set aside as the two employees at whose behest the same were issued by the opposite parties, have settled their disputes with the petitioner company.

¶15

Further attention has been drawn towards the application for taking supplementary counter affidavit on record filed by the Standing Counsel on 24.05.2023 wherein it has been categorically indicated in para 6 that the notice in question dated 20.12.2000 was issued to participate in the hearing before the Labour Commissioner, U.P. The said notice has become infructuous in the present circumstances and no further action is required thereon as the matter in question has been finally settled through settlement.

¶16

The aforesaid short counter affidavit has been filed by one Sunil Kumar, Labour Enforcement Officer, Lucknow.

¶17

In view of the above, it appears that nothing remains to be adjudicated, accordingly, the proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice dated 20.12.2000 is prohibited. No further action may be required against the petitioner.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as considered by this Court, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶19

Order Date :- 25.7.2023 Mohd. Sharif

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Saf Yeast Compandy Ltd.U.P.S.I.D.C.Industrial v. State of U.P.through Prin.Secy.Labour Dept.and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saf Yeast Compandy Ltd.U.P.S.I.D.C.Industrial v. State of U.P.through Prin.Secy.Labour Dept.and 6 Ors.

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

Dr. Ashok Nigam Senior Adv. Vs Sri V.G. Somani Drug Controller General of India, Govt. of India Ministry Health, New Delhi

Dr. Ashok Nigam, Senior Advocate Vs Sri Pradeep Singh Kharola, Secy., Ministry of Civil Aviation

Dr. Ashok Nigam Sr. Adv. Vs Ajai Kumar Bhalla, Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Govt. India, New Delhi and Others

Jagdambika Prasad Shukla Vs Sri Akash Singh, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Mankapur, Gonda

Smt. Archna Vs Smt. Vineeta, District Basic Education Officer, Hardoi and Another

C/M Yuvak Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya,Deoria Thru. Manager Firangi Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education, Lko. and 4 Others