Disposed¶16

Director Rajya Krishi Prabandh Sansthan Rahman Khera Lucknow v. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal II U.P. LUCKNOWand Anr.

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2025WRIC/8417/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 6-N U.P. Industrial Disputes Act; reinstatement with 50% back wages; award dated 30.08.2017; ouster 1994 without formal order; 240 days service; long delay; no evidence from either side; lump-sum satisfaction of award Rs. 2,50,000 within three months; writ petition disposed; Rajya Krishi Prabandh Sansthan vs Industrial Tribunal II Lucknow; Pankaj Bhatia J.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; 18-09-2025.

What did the court decide?

Award dated 30.08.2017 (reinstatement with 50% back wages) declared satisfied upon payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- by the petitioner within three months. ¶16

Director Rajya Krishi Prabandh Sansthan Rahman Khera Lucknow Vs Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal II U.P. LUCKNOWand Anr. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 8417 of 2018

¶3

Director Rajya Krishi Prabandh Sansthan Rahman Khera Lucknow

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Presiding Officer Industrial Lucknowand Anr	Tribunal Ii U.P.	.....	Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., C.K. Tripathi	Sahu, K.K.	Tripathi, S.K.

¶7

Court No. - 6

¶8

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶10

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award dated 30.08.2017, whereby, the order was passed for reinstatement along with 50 % back wages.

¶11

The case of the respondent- workman was that he has ousted from service on 18.06.1994, without there being any formal order which was the violation of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

¶12

The Labour Court after analyzing the evidence, ultimately held that generally, no appointment letters, etc. were issued, no evidence was led by the workman also in the form of the co-workers whose name was taken but they were not brought into evidence. The Court recorded that, the labour dispute was raised after five years allegedly being removal from service. On the basis of the evidence, it was found that, the workman had completed 240 days, thus, the benefit of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act had to be accorded to the workman.

¶13

The award in question was delivered on 30.08.2017 and, admittedly, the petitioner was removed from service on 17.06.1994.

¶14

WRIC No. 8417 of 2018

¶15

¶16

Considering the long delay and, there being no evidence from either of the side and also considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is disposed of directing that the award shall stand satisfied if, the petitioner pay an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- within a period of three months.

¶17

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

¶18

September 18, 2025

¶19

Praveen

¶20

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

Director Rajya Krishi Prabandh Sansthan Rahman Khera Lucknow v. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal II U.P. LUCKNOWand Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Director Rajya Krishi Prabandh Sansthan Rahman Khera Lucknow v. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal II U.P. LUCKNOWand Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Happu Verma Alias Kamta Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 10 Others

Angel Suresh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Medical Education Lko. and Another

Mayur Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Shri Nath Baba College of Pharmacy, Balia Thru. Authorized Signatory Santosh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education, Lucknow and Others

Shivam (Minor) Thru. His Guardian Sri Om Prakash Yadav Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Education, and 4 Others

Asif Khaliq and 2 Others Vs Branch Manager Bank of Baroda Branch Motinagar Distt. Unnao and 5 Others