Disposed¶18

Ashok Kumar Trivedi v. Deputy Labour Commissioner U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2026WRIC/3583/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Expedition writ (WRIT - C No. 3583 of 2026, decided 10.04.2026, Jaspreet Singh, J., Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench): direction to Deputy Labour Commissioner U.P. to decide pending Execution/Enforcement proceedings arising from award dated 07.07.2025 of Labour Court, U.P. Ayodhya (Adjudication Case No. 04 of 2025) expeditiously, with full hearing and no unnecessary adjournments; no merits examination; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.1 to consider and finally decide the pending Execution/Enforcement proceedings arising out of the award dated 07.07.2025 as expeditiously as possible, with full opportunity of hearing and without unnecessary adjournments; notice to private respondents dispensed with; merits left open. ¶18

Ashok Kumar Trivedi vs Deputy Labour Commissioner U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct respondent No.1 to consider and finally decide the pending Execution/Enforcement proceedings arising out of the award dated 07.07.2025 in Adjudication Case No. 04 of 2025 expeditiously.

¶12

Court's answer

Ends of justice are served by directing respondent No.1 to consider and finally decide the pending Execution/Enforcement proceedings arising out of the award dated 07.07.2025 (Adjudication Case No. 04 of 2025, Labour Court, U.P. Ayodhya) as expeditiously as possible, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either party.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The Court has not examined the case of either party on merits, and the authority concerned remains free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Jaspreet Singh, J. — Writ petition under which the petitioner sought expeditious disposal and conclusion of Execution/Enforcement proceedings arising out of the award dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Ayodhya in Adjudication Case No. 04 of 2025, pending before respondent No.1 (Deputy Labour Commissioner U.P.). The Court held that no gainful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending and directed respondent No.1 to consider and finally decide the pending Execution/Enforcement proceedings as expeditiously as possible, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either party. The Court expressly clarified that it had not examined the case of either party on merits and the authority remains free to decide strictly in accordance with law. Notice to private respondents was dispensed with; standing counsel raised no objection to an expedite order. Petition disposed of (order dated April 10, 2026).

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 3583 of 2026

Ashok Kumar Trivedi

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Deputy Labour Commissioner U.P. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Piyush Asthana, Ujjwal Kirti Bisen Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 8

¶9

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.

¶11

In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents is dispensed with.

¶12

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal and conclusion of the Execution/Enforcement proceedings arising out of the award dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Ayodhya in Adjudication Case No. 04 of 2025 pending before the respondent no. 1.

¶13

Learned standing counsel submits that he has no objection in case an expedite order is passed.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.1 to consider and finally decide the pending proceedings of Execution/Enforcement proceedings arising out of the award dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Ayodhya in Adjudication Case No. 04 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶15

WRIC No. 3583 of 2026

¶16

¶17

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶18

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶19

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶20

April 10, 2026

¶21

Asheesh

¶22

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

Ashok Kumar Trivedi v. Deputy Labour Commissioner U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Trivedi v. Deputy Labour Commissioner U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 8 Others

C/M Mahatma Gandhi Inter College Thru. Manager Ahsan Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 2 Others

Mohd. Nadeem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 7 Others

Harpal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Vijay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

Shri Badrinath Mahila Mahavidyalaya Thru. Manager Meera Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko and 5 Others