Remanded

Niti Prakash @ Bhalu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2024WRIC/2365/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, arguing non-applicability as an individual employer in a mango orchard. Court stayed the impugned orders pending determination of applicability.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the impugned orders dated 09.02.2024 and 12.08.2021 until further order of this Court.

Niti Prakash @ Bhalu vs State of U.P Thru. Prin… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2365 of 2024 Petitioner :- Niti Prakash @ Bhalu Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avnish Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶3

Heard Shri Priyam Kumar Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Avnish Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 & 2.

¶4

Issue notice to respondents no. 3 to 6 returnable at an early date.

¶5

Steps be taken within a week.

¶6

List on the date indicated in the notice.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents no. 3 to 6 were working as Chowkidar in the mango orchard of the petitioner and the petitioner used to pay them salary. The respondents no. 3 to 6 filed a case before the prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 / Assistant Labour Commissioner, Hardoi registered as Case No. P.W.- 13 of 2018 alleging that they were not being paid the wages as prescribed under the provisions of the Act, 1936. The petitioner filed his objections. However the prescribed authority, vide the order dated 12.08.2021, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition, passed an ex-parte order directing the petitioner to pay certain wages. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal which has also been rejected vide the order dated 09.02.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition.

¶8

The legal argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner would not fall within the ambit of being industrial or other establishment as defined under the provisions of Section 2(ii) of the Act, 1936 in as much as he is an individual and the Act, 1936 would only be applicable with respect to an "industrial or other establishments" which include tramway service or motor transport, air transport, dock, inland vessel etc to which the petitioner does not relate to.

¶9

The matter requires consideration.

¶10

Accordingly, until further order of this Court, the orders impugned dated 09.02.2024 and 12.08.2021, copies of which are annexures 1 and 2 to the petition, shall remain stayed.

¶11

Order Date :- 14.3.2024 J.K. Dinkar

¶12

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Niti Prakash @ Bhalu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niti Prakash @ Bhalu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. and 5 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

Sheela Rastogi and Another Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lko. and Another

Aqbal Ahmad and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Others

Ajai Prakash Alias Ajay Prakash Jaiswal Vs the Learned Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Sadar ,Faizabad and 5 Others

Brijnandan vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Balrampur and 7 Others

Daya Shankar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dhiraj Srivastava and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Higher Education, Lko. and 4 Others