Dismissed

Anil Kumar Bajpai v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2024/915/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the rejection of his Statutory Wages application by the Labour Court due to non-payment subsequent to November 2011. The High Court dismissed the writ petition for lack of merit and evidence regarding continued employment after that date.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit due to absence of evidence regarding employment after November 2011.

Anil Kumar Bajpai Vs Presiding Officer… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52771

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 915 of 2022

¶4

Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Bajpai Respondent :- Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Arvind Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel.

¶7

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged order of Labour Court dated 28th February, 2020 wherein the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 33 (c) (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been rejected.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a sales representative with effect from 14.6.1995 at Gola Gokaran Nath to discharge his duties of sales promotion of the employer i.e. respondent company. It has been submitted that the respondent company is incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 19-A, New Mandi, Muzafffar Nagar, U.P.251001. It has been submitted that for the work of sale promotion and sales done by the petitioner he is paid remuneration like daily working allowances for the days he has to work in fields either at his Headquarters or outstation within his territory besides traveling and other expenses like postage, stationary, telephone call expenses, staying charges from the respondent - employer.

¶9

The grievance raised by the petitioner before the Labour Court was with regard to non payment of wages and allowance for the period August, 2010 to March, 2012 and also wages from November, 2011 to March, 2012 amounting to RS.3,12,902/-. On filing of the said application before the Labour Court notices were issued by the employer i.e. respondents who put in appearance and opposed the claim of the petitioner. It was admitted by the the respondents that the petitioner was in his employment but stated that they have regularly paid salary to the petitioner till he was in service till November 2011. It was submitted that in November, 2011 the petitioner was not in service of the respondent and consequently he was not entitled to any salary or any allowance as claimed by him.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from November, 2011 on - wards as the petitioner was working in Lakhimpur Kheri and was discharging his duties as per the telephonic instructions received from the company.

¶11

Learned Labour Court while examining the contentions raised by the petitioner have recorded a finding that no documentary evidence has been produced by the petitioner with regard to his employment subsequent to November, 2011 and in absence of such evidence the claim of the petitioner cannot be allowed. Even the statement made by the petitioner before the Labour Court clearly indicates that he does not have any documents in his possession, therefore, the same could not have been filed.

¶12

This Court has duly examined the impugned order dated 28th February, 2020 as well as the records submitted by the petitioner before this Court and from examination of the aforesaid and consideration of the facts it is clear that the dispute pertains to the claim of the petitioner subsequent to November, 2011. The respondents, on the other hand, have submitted that the petitioner is not in their employment subsequent to November, 2011and even the petitioner could not either before the Labour Court or before this Court show that he was in employment subsequent to November, 2011. In absence of any documents or other cogent and reliable evidence the Labour Court could not have allowed the claim of the petitioner as sought by him and even this Court could not find any material to take a different finding than what has been recorded by the Labour Court. In absence of material it was not possible for the Labour Court to have come to a conclusion that the petitioner had, in fact, worked subsequent to November, 2011 and only after the aforesaid facts could have been proved that they would have granted the claim as sought by him in the application before the Labour Court and accordingly, there is no material or contentions raised by the petitioner and no interference in the impugned award can be made by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶13

In light of the above, this petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 1.8.2024

¶16

RKM.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Kumar Bajpai v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Bajpai v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lko. and 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

Haribansh Chaubey and 6 Others Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Provident Fund Office Lko. and Another

Ram Shabd Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate , Jaisinghpur , Sultanpur and Others

Abid Ali Vs Civil Judge (Jr.Div) Lalganj Pratapgarh and 3 Others

M/S Sardar Motors Civil Lines Faizabad Throu Its Partner Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow

Rajaram and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and Others

Badarunnisha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies,U.P. Govt. Lko. and 2 Others