Dismissed

Anil Kumar Shukla and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru. Secretary Labour DEPTT.-2 Lko. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC13 May 2024WRIC/2679/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court recalled a writ petition dismissed for want of prosecution due to the petitioner's counsel's unavailability. On the merits, the court dismissed the writ petition challenging orders rejecting retrenchment claims, holding that the petitioners voluntarily resigned and received dues without fraud.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 26.04.2024 was recalled; the writ petition was dismissed.

Anil Kumar Shukla and Anr. Vs State of U.P… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36576

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2679 of 2017 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Shukla And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secretary Labour Deptt.-2 Lko. And 2 Ors

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Manik Sinha,Mohd. Taufiq Siddiqui,Rahul Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Km. Vishwa Mohini,Vimal Kumar

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

(Order on recall application)

¶8

Heard Sri Mohd. Taufiq Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Ms. Meena Kumari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vimal Kumar, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3.

¶9

This is an application for recall of an order dated 26.04.2024 whereby the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. It has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that when this case was taken, the learned counsel for the petitioner was busy in Court No. 15 in connection with another case.

¶10

The cause shown in the affidavit appears to be sufficient.

¶11

Accordingly, the application is allowed and the order dated 26.04.2024 is hereby recalled.

¶12

(Order on memo of Petition)

¶13

Heard Sri Mohd. Taufiq Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Ms. Meena Kumari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vimal Kumar, the learned counsel for the opposite party

¶14

no.3.

¶15

By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged two separate orders dated 30.07.2016 passed in Claim Petition No. 111 of 2015 and Claim Petition No. 119 of 2015, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, have been dismissed.

¶16

The petitioner No. 1 had filed Case No. 111 of 2015 and the petitioner no. 2 had filed Case No. 119 of 2015 before the Conciliation Officer/ Additional Labour Commissioner, Lucknow Region, Lucknow, against (1)- Partner/Director Speed Motors Pvt. Ltd., (2) Partner/Director Speed Motors Wagon Pvt. Ltd. and (3) Partner/ Director Speed ISUZU Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner No. 1 stated in his application that he was working in the workshop of the opposite party no.1 as a Supervisor. However, in the following paragraph, he stated that he was working on a post of Mechanic and a Electrician. The petitioner No. 2 stated in his application that he was working as a Mechanic/Assistant Mechanic in the workshop of the opposite party no.1 and in the following paragraph he stated that he was working on a post of Mechanic and Electrician.

¶17

Both the petitioners stated in their respective applications that they have been illegally retrenched on 31.01.2015. It is stated in the application that on 24.05.2014, the agency of Hindustan Motors' Four Wheeler Vehicle Ambassador was closed on 24.05.2014. On 31.01.2015, signatures of petitioners and some other workmen were obtained on a blank paper under a pretext that the same was required for ensuring payment of amounts of G.P.F and they were assured that after closure of agency of Ambassador car of Hindustan Motors, the workmen will be adjusted in workshops of BMW and ISUZU vehicles. However,

¶18

as the workmen were not having knowledge about the aforesaid vehicles, they will be given training for this purpose. Thereafter, the amount of gratuity was paid to the workmen. When the workmen were not called for fresh employment even after expiry of 15 days whereas some other workmen namely Virendra Kumar, Jai Prakash, Moin, Ram Dulare, Mohd. Rafiq etc. were engaged, they filed the application under Section 2A read with Section 4 of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶19

The opposite parties have filed objections against the application filed by the petitioner inter alia stating that the petitioners themselves did not know as to who was their employers and against whom they were seeking relief. It was further stated in the reply that the workmen had given resignation on 03.02.2015 due to closure of Hindustan Motors Ltd. and they have received the entire dues i.e. gratuity, salary and leave encashment.

¶20

The petitioners filed their rejoinder reiterating that they had been made to sign on a blank paper and thereafter resignation letter was prepared on that. The petitioners further stated that mere fact that they had received the amount of gratuity, leave encashment and salary through cheque and had encashed that cheque, would not affect the legality of their retrenchment.

¶21

Copies of the resignation letters dated 03.02.2015 have been annexed with the writ petition, which shows that those been signed by 15 employees. The description of the employees is given in a tabular form and signatures of the employees are contained in column four of the tables in respective blocks against their names. The signatures of nine employees are there on a collective resignation letter signed by them and the signatures of six other employees are there on the other resignation letter.

¶22

A bare perusal of the resignation letters indicates that all the employees have singed at proper place against their names mentioned in tables printed on the letters and it does not appear that the signature have been obtained on a blank paper and thereafter resignation has been printed on it fraudulently.

¶23

Accordingly, there appears to be no illegality in the order dated 30.07.2016 passed by Conciliation Officer/Additional Labour Commissioner, Lucknow Region, Lucknow, rejecting the claim of the petitioners on the ground that they had themselves tendered their resignation and had obtained the entire arrears.

¶24

The writ petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶26

Order Date :- 13.5.2024 Preeti.

¶27

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Kumar Shukla and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru. Secretary Labour DEPTT.-2 Lko. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Shukla and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru. Secretary Labour DEPTT.-2 Lko. and 2 Ors.

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

M/S Antriksh Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Ghaziabad Thru. Auth. Signatory Mr. Rajesh Kumar Vs Amit Saxena

Akbar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Manish Maheshwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Shyamu Alias Lala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Ram Harish Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others

Vijay Bahadur Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue,Lko. and 6 Others