Disposed

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Mumbai, Thru. Its Authorized Signatory v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Labour, Lucknow and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Feb 2024WRIC/2009/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging execution of a Labour Court award passed ex-parte in favour of a workman; the employer's recall application remains pending as the Labour Court is vacant. Counter affidavit sought; interim order stays further execution if 75% of the awarded amount is deposited within three weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Mumbai, Thru. Its… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2009 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Mumbai, Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Labour, Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aakash Prasad,Amitav Singh,Himanshu Singh,Yash Joshi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arvind Pratap Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Akash Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Arvind Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.

¶6

By means of present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the validity of the execution proceedings commenced by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Faizabad thereby seeking to execute the award dated 08.11.2023, passed in favour of respondent no. 4-workman.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that that services of respondent no. 4 who was working on the post of Territory Sales Officer, were terminated. Aggrieved by which he approached the Labour Court resulting in the award been passed in his favour. The proceedings were held ex-parte. It is further stated that award was published on 8/6.11.2023 and when the petitioner came to know about the said award moved an application for recalling the ex-parte award on 06.12.2023, which is still pending consideration before the Labour Court, Ayodhya.

¶8

It is next submitted that the Labour Court is vacant and Presiding Officer is not available to consider and decide the recall application preferred by the petitioner and this fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondents, and on the other hand the execution proceedings have been initiated for execution of the award.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has prayed that they may be granted time to file counter affidavit.

¶10

In the aforesaid circumstances let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. The petitioner shall have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶11

List this case on 15.04.2024.

¶12

As an interim measure, it is provided that in case petitioner deposits 75% of the amount awarded by the Labour Court within next three weeks, further execution proceedings in pursuance to the impugned award shall be kept in abeyance.

¶13

It is further directed that the amount so deposited by the petitioner shall be kept in interest bearing account.

¶14

Order Date :- 28.2.2024 A. Verma

¶15

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Mumbai, Thru. Its Authorized Signatory v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Labour, Lucknow and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Mumbai, Thru. Its Authorized Signatory v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Labour, Lucknow and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Geeta Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Smt. Anuradha Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Mohd. Faizan Khan and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Sohanlal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Nazibul Rahim Khand Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others